Kennedy to be ‘Censorship’ Witness Today

Despite Democrat Attempts to Silence Him

This morning, in the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, DC., the GOP-led Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government will hear from three witnesses: Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.; Breitbart News reporter, Emma-Jo Morris; and Louisiana Department of Justice Special Assistant Attorney General, D. John Sauer.

The hearing continues a months-long examination of the federal government’s role in censoring Americans —a subject about which Kennedy is all too familiar. He’s been routinely censored, long before he announced his run for president in April.

In fact, ironically, House Democrats earlier this week had hoped to censor Kennedy from discussing censorship.

Hearings on the alleged weaponization of the federal government began in February, under House Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio. This is the first time Kennedy has been called to testify.

Failed Attempt to Silence Kennedy

On Monday, a group of House Democrats urged House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R - Calif.) and Committee Chairman Jordan to revoke Kennedy’s invite to serve as a witness due to statements he allegedly made about ethnically-targeted bioweapons. 

The mainstream press, disinterested in the fact that Kennedy was quoting a peer-reviewed paper on bio-weapons, not espousing views of his own, gobbled and distorted the story, painting Kennedy as antisemitic and anti-Asian. 

As Kennedy explained on Twitter on July 16: 

The insinuation by @nypost and others that, as as result of my quoting a peer-reviewed paper on bio-weapons, I am somehow antisemitic, is a disgusting fabrication. I understand the emotional pain that these inaccurate distortions and fabrications have caused to many Jews who recall the blood libels of poison wells and the deliberate spread of disease as the pretext for genocidal programs against their ancestors. My father and my uncles, John F. Kennedy and Senator Edward Kennedy, devoted enormous political energies during their careers to supporting Israel and fighting antisemitism. I intend to spend my political career making those family causes my priority. 

Without any evidence that he knew what Kennedy had actually said, McCarthy on July 17 told reporters: “I disagree with everything he said.”

But the Speaker continued in a vein that his erstwhile First Amendment devotees across the aisle would not: “The hearing that we have this week is about censorship,” he said. “I don’t think censoring somebody is actually the answer here.”

Censoring Kennedy is Backfiring 

Since Kennedy announced his candidacy in April, he’s been routinely censored by social media and legacy press. 

The Kennedy Beacon has been watching. And will continue to watch.

Even though the big social media platforms want to silence Kennedy, their actions might be having the opposite effect. Kennedy continues scoring well in recent polls; it appears people want to hear what he has to say.

So far, YouTube has been Kennedy’s biggest censor—a trend that began even before he announced his candidacy. During a March speech at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire, Kennedy discussed vaccines. A video filmed by Manchester Public TV never made it to YouTube; the platform blocked it as the TV station was trying to upload it. You can read more about the case here.

In late April, days after Kennedy’s April 18 announcement about his presidential bid, ABC News censored its exclusive interview with Kennedy, excising the candidates’ skepticism about the efficacy and rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine.

After the interview aired, ABC News anchor Linsey Davis explained the network’s decision, stating, "during our conversation, Kennedy made false claims about the Covid-19 vaccines.” She continued, “Data shows that the Covid-19 vaccines prevented millions of hospitalizations and deaths from the disease…We used our editorial judgment in not including extended portions of that exchange in our interview. We thank Mr. Kennedy for the conversation.”

Kennedy is a vocal advocate for free speech. “To silence a major political candidate is profoundly undemocratic,” he wrote on Twitter. “Social media is the modern equivalent of the town square. How can democracy function if only some candidates have access to it?”

In June, YouTube removed a video of Kennedy and Canadian psychologist and podcast host Jordan Peterson.

“We removed a video from the Jordan Peterson channel for violating YouTube’s general vaccine misinformation policy, which prohibits content that alleges that vaccines cause chronic side effects, outside of rare side effects that are recognized by health authorities,” YouTube said in a statement.

The ninety-five-minute video was recorded when Peterson interviewed Kennedy for his podcast.

After YouTube took the video down, Kennedy asked on Twitter whether social media platforms should censor presidential candidates. It is a valid question. Especially considering that the photo-sharing social media platform Instagram banned Kennedy in February 2021. However, Instagram reinstated Kennedy’s account on June 4, because of he had become a candidate. 

“As he is now an active candidate for president of the United States, we have restored access to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s, Instagram account,” Meta said in a statement.

“Censoring Fuels Distrust”

Later in June, YouTube deleted yet another of Kennedy’s interviews, this time with former New York Post reporter Al Guart, because the video allegedly breached the platform’s “community standards.”

Again, Kennedy raised concerns about censorship on Twitter: ”People made a big deal about Russia supposedly manipulating internet information to influence a Presidential election,” he wrote. “Shouldn’t we be worried when giant tech corporations do the same?"

New York Post journalist Rikki Schlott pointed out in a recent opinion piece that YouTube’s attempt to silence Kennedy has “backfired spectacularly” since the deleted interview with Petersen has close to five million views on Twitter. People are naturally interested in things that they are not supposed to watch. Kennedy’s videos are extremely popular.

“Censoring controversial figures — whether they’re speaking unspoken truths or spewing complete nonsense — fuels distrust,” wrote Schlott toward the end of her editorial. “And that distrust will ultimately fuel RFK, Jr.’s campaign. Censoring a political candidate is a fundamentally undemocratic instinct.”