We’ve heard a lot about censorship in the past couple of years. Politically, most of it comes from the conservative right and those such as former President Donald Trump, who claim that their accounts and such on social media and Big Tech platforms are unfairly being censored or even canceled completely – and all because those in power have a left-leaning mind.
But while this censorship has been going on for a good while now and can arguably be said to have caused Republicans the 2020 election and the presidency, no one except those who have been censored seem to be making a big deal about it. Washington seems oblivious to the whole thing, and those Big Tech companies themselves say there isn’t anything unfair or biased going on.
But what happens when minorities start to be censored for merely exercising their constitutional rights?
Surely that would be an issue the progressive and all-inclusive left would take issue with, right?
Just maybe not if that constitutional right is gun ownership…
The issue was raised in late June when the Los Angeles Times wrote, “Is California ready for more Black people to legally carry guns in public?”
Daily Caller writer David Hookstead had a problem with it and immediately responded on his Twitter account, saying, “If you find yourself worrying about more American citizens legally carrying guns and exercising their Second Amendment rights just because they’re minorities, congrats, you’re racist.”
And he’s not wrong.
I mean, why is it more socially acceptable for a white person to legally own and carry a firearm than a black man? The fact of the matter is that it shouldn’t be and isn’t to those of us who aren’t racist.
Now, it’s important here to point out that the article came because the Supreme Court recently rejected a proposed New York law that would have forced those applying for a concealed carry permit to explain why they wanted one. California had offered a similar idea at one time.
And now, thanks to justice and our Constitution, all gun owners, whether black, white, or brown, are celebrating.
But apparently, those on the leftward side of the situation aren’t all in, especially when the rejection of these laws makes it possible for more minorities to legally own and carry. That was efficiently proved when Hookstead reposted what he said on Twitter on his Instagram account.
As Hookstead said, “Instagram is censoring my post encouraging and supporting minorities to exercise their God-given Second Amendment rights. What about this could possibly be offensive to anyone?”
According to Instagram, a Meta (the new name for Facebook) owned platform, they “limit access to certain content based on age, so we’ve hidden this photo from people who may be too young to view it.”
The photo in question is the same one that the Los Angeles Times used in their article. It’s simply a black man with a handgun in his palms. He’s not aiming it; he’s not really even holding it. It’s just resting on his palms.
In fact, you can’t even see the man’s face. But you can tell, obviously, by his hands and arms that he is not white. And apparently, therein lies the problem…
Naturally, Hookstead wanted to know why his post was removed or “hidden” from possibly too young viewers, especially on a notorious platform for showing all kinds of obscenity and nudity to those of all ages.
So, he contacted Instagram, or at least tried. First, he called. Then, he sent out a few emails. But no attempt got him anywhere.
Now, in all fairness, Instagram could simply be programmed to censor all images with guns.
However, as I mentioned before, it’s more than a bit ridiculous for a platform that finds child nudity and all fine and dandy.
Another issue with this explanation is that, again, it only seems to be minority gun holders that get censored… Talk about discrimination.
In either case, it seems Instagram/Facebook/Meta, whatever you want to call them, isn’t making themselves look very good. Then again, it’s not like the political left will take much notice for it to matter, will they?