When you eliminate people from making contributions to conversations because you disagree with their point of view, you are erasing the individuality that makes each person unique. There is a gross systemic problem rooted deep with liberal media to suppress conservative voices.

In the book 1984, by George Orwell there is a quote that perfectly fits this situation “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”

“Newspeak” is a language that exists in the fictional world of 1984, simplifying language and restricting it so that those in power can control a person’s expressionality. “Thoughtcrime” is the problem of individuals thinking “incorrectly” and the government’s way of punishing them for their “mistakes.”

Although this world and language created by Orwell is fictional, many can draw parallels to current political circumstances.

The media often claims that there is no bias within telling news, which is absurd, considering that there is extreme negativity pointed towards one view, and assumptions made with no factual objectivity considering the opposite view.

When you choose to only present news on issues that are more liberal, giving no voice to conservative ones—how can you say that you aren’t biased?

How can you say you aren’t biased when assumptions are made to the extent of benefiting the liberal party? These assumptions are critically eradicated from those that present the opposite views. Not only is there a need for information for both perspectives, there is a desire from major media outlets, such as CNN, ABC, NBC, The New York Times, and HuffPost,  to ostracize and condemn anyone that disagrees with them.

What generates from this type of rhetoric presented in the media creates a situation for conservatives to censor themselves or to be punished. Punishment is different in all situations, except a commonality of harsh treatment is involved in each faucet.

This often takes the form of cancellation. Cancelling means taking the livelihood of an individual simply because you disagree with their framework, the disagreement with how they see political ideology.

I’m not saying that you have to agree with what is presented, all I am saying is that I should be able to state what I believe unapologetically. I shouldn’t have to be afraid of losing what I have worked for, just for having an opinion that disagrees with the majority.

Limiting freedom of expression is what totalitarians do, in reality, what people do not see is that the people in power (media) are in control. They say neutrality, but in reality someone always has power.

“Limit the voices” although implicit, because no one will state it explicitly, takes your view and superimposes it on mine. In the end you remain in power, what you’re saying is that “only my voice matters.”