‘Censorship, Damn It!’*

Once in power, those who wrapped themselves in the false slogan of a greater freedom quickly revealed themselves as defenders of repression.

The cry of “Freedom, damn it!” became popular during the rise of neoconservatism. A hint of antiestablishment protest, which was too much for the puritanical left, was used in the interest of improving electoral expectations — and it worked. It was a misappropriation because, until then, “freedom” had been a clear complaint against power and the powerful. But it’s astonishing to see that Donald Trump has achieved popular success by playing the rebel billionaire, guardian of the working class, golfer every weekend.

The other misappropriation was that of the profanity, “damn it”, used so cleverly by Mexicans, but which always sounds fake and insincere if it doesn’t come out of their mouths. But that was it. It was to be expected that, once in power, those who got wrapped up in the false slogan of a greater freedom would quickly reveal themselves as defenders of an alternative that fits them a lot better: Censorship, damn it! The list is long and grows every day.

The most recent episodes of this have been related to the wave of dismissals following the heinous murder of influencer Charlie Kirk: a victim who was used — and here the mechanism is as ancient as political argument itself — to attack those who didn’t think like him and disagreed with his defense of the indiscriminate sale of guns and other radical statements in his discourse. Unfortunately, victims can find themselves between ideological spectra in a country where hatred and tension among its citizens continues to grow, without political organizations managing to reduce the threat. Even TV presenters have lost their jobs as a result of networks being subjected to corporate extortion from regulatory bodies that can give and take away licenses and, above all, can veto business deals and mergers. The pressure on reporters has increased and it’s sad to see how they ban media outlets from press briefings and how press access to the White House or the Pink House** (“Casa Rosada”) differs based on editorial lines which are inherent to journalism. Trump is maneuvering to try to sue The New York Times for another astronomical amount because, according to his indictment, it’s been criticizing him and his businesses for years.

It was also enough that a large part of Western society finally realized that Israel had broken all acceptable boundaries in its revenge against the Palestinians in order for blatant censorship to begin. First, branding protests as kale borroka***(“street fighting”), and then ordering the pulling down of flags and banners of support, closing channels of discussion at schools and colleges, and threatening those who dare to speak out against the disproportionate attacks that on a daily basis unscrupulously kill women, children, the elderly, doctors and aid workers who are classified as terrorists. Labeling a relevant criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government as antisemitism adds to the gross exercise in censorship.

If somebody had naively thought the brave conservative libertarians had arrived to protect their right to have an opinion on social media and to public conversation about the dull straitjacket that is political correctness, they must have been sorely disappointed. I imagine those with a little life experience suspected there couldn’t be anything good behind the slogan “Freedom, damn it!” Because if anything characterizes freedom, it’s moderation, respect for others and repulsion at insult, belittlement and aggression.


Editor’s notes:
* This article is available in its original language with a paid subscription.
** The Casa Rosada, or “Pink House,” is the official residence of the president of Argentina.
*** “Kale borroka” is a Basque term that refers to urban guerrilla actions carried out by Basque nationals in the nationalist left in the Basque Country and Navarre, in northern Spain.