Reddit’s science “subreddit” banned anybody posting comments critical of the manmade global warming myth. This in and of itself is not a 1st Amendment violation. Reddit is a privately-run website, and they can moderate their comments any way they want. If people are upset by that, those people should start their own website where they moderate it in a way that they see fit.
While police brutality videos and commentary critical of our imperialistic foreign policy are welcome and often popularized on Reddit, they are notoriously pro-anthropogenic global warming, and dissenters are summarily referred to as “science-deniers” and accused of being “bought and paid for” by “Big Oil.”
The science subreddit forum is moderated by a guy named Nathan Allen, who claims to be a “PhD Chemist” for a major chemical company. He authored an article on Grist.org about how he banned so-called “climate change-deniers” from his subreddit forum and asks why every other newspaper can’t do the same. I’m guessing he’s wanting every media outlet to censor any discussion related to questions or criticisms of the global warming myth. He wants the major media to consider global warming “settled science” that’s not up to debate anymore. No questions allowed.
What’s a little ironic is that this moderator who proudly banned these critics says that he’s “passionately dedicated to free speech.” Look, “free speech” isn’t about pornography or foul language. It’s about being able to criticize openly the political establishment and their policies. Global warming is an idea that is held so dearly by our political establishment and is being used to scare people into letting the State control all natural resources in the name of “protecting the environment.” Allen can ban his critics all he wants, but don’t claim to be “passionately dedicated to free speech” at the same time. He’s talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Like our commenters, professional climate change deniers have an outsized influence in the media and the public. And like our commenters, their rejection of climate science is not based on an accurate understanding of the science but on political preferences and personality. As moderators responsible for what millions of people see, we felt that to allow a handful of commenters to so purposefully mislead our audience was simply immoral.
So if a half-dozen volunteers can keep a page with more than 4 million users from being a microphone for the antiscientific, is it too much to ask for newspapers to police their own editorial pages as proficiently?
He’s certainly and passionately dedicated to free speech, as long as that speech is in complete agreement with him and the political establishment.