Those who are upset about this: Is it because of the censoring, or is it because it was done for the wrong reason? If the journalist in question is doubtful about vaccine safety, does that make it OK to remove him again?
I think the issue here is an obvious conflict of interest and general hypocrisy. It also is an pretty good counterexample to the whole idea of freedom of speech absolutism. Someone is always going to decide what speech is preferable and that person is always going to be subject to their own biases.
Comments
Those who are upset about this: Is it because of the censoring, or is it because it was done for the wrong reason? If the journalist in question is doubtful about vaccine safety, does that make it OK to remove him again?
I think the issue here is an obvious conflict of interest and general hypocrisy. It also is an pretty good counterexample to the whole idea of freedom of speech absolutism. Someone is always going to decide what speech is preferable and that person is always going to be subject to their own biases.