Gather ’round the oak barrel, folks, and let’s crack open a fresh pour of political bourbon, aged in the hypocrisy casks of Capitol Hill, where the rules bend like a willow in a whiskey wind.
On one side of the tasting room, we’ve got the Biden administration, smooth as a wheated mash, leaning on social media saloons like Facebook, Twitter (God rest its pre-X soul), and YouTube to scrub the shelves of “misinformation” about vaccines and elections. It’s all friendly like jawboning, they say. No threats, just a nudge and a wink from the White House, FBI, and that good old Surgeon General.
But flip the label to the Trump era, and suddenly that same bottle is labeled “poison,” a heavy handed pour threatening to revoke licenses and rewrite the rules. How’s one man’s “public health chat” another’s “fascist shutdown”? Pull up a stool. This double standard’s got more kick than a barrel proof rye.
A Tale of Two Administrations and One Constitution
Start with Uncle Joe’s crew, circa 2021 to 2024, when the pandemic had the nation chugging uncertainty like bad hooch. The feds didn’t just sip and suggest. They poured heavy, emails, meetings, pressure campaigns, pushing tech companies to take down posts questioning vaccine efficacy or casting doubt on the 2020 election.
It wasn’t just chatter. Behind the scenes, officials were sending curated lists of “problematic content,” hinting at the potential fallout of letting so-called “misinformation” run wild. “Hey, Zuck, Dorsey—might want to cork that election fraud talk before it ferments into a riot,” was the subtext. And all the while, DHS toyed with launching a “Disinformation Governance Board” that got shut down faster than a speakeasy raid.
Critics hollered: coercion! First Amendment foul! And that cry became a court case—Murthy v. Missouri, the 2024 saloon brawl that made its way to the Supreme Court. States like Missouri and Louisiana, plus a posse of silenced users, sued Uncle Sam, arguing that the government had twisted the arms of private platforms into doing its censorship bidding.
The verdict? On June 26, 2024, the Court ruled 6 to 3 in favor of the Biden administration. The majority said the plaintiffs lacked standing—couldn’t prove direct harm. Chief Justice Roberts served up the ruling smooth: so long as there’s no overt coercion or threats, the government is free to “communicate” with platforms. Translation? Uncle Sam can keep whispering in Silicon Valley’s ear, just don’t catch him with his hand on the ban button.
The dissenters—Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch—weren’t buying it. They saw a dangerous precedent brewing, one where government “suggestions” come with an unspoken threat, chilling lawful speech under the banner of public safety.
But here we are in 2025. No mass arrests. No national censorship office. Yet the chill lingers. Platforms still pour heavy on content moderation, and the government’s seal of approval hasn’t exactly been peeled off the label.
Meanwhile, in the Trump Taproom
Now rewind the clock to the Trump taproom, 2017 to 2021. The Donald wasn’t subtle—he was slinging shots at the media like a bartender with a grudge. Remember May 28, 2020? Twitter slapped a fact check label on one of his tweets about mail in voting. Trump’s response? Rage and an Executive Order aimed at gutting Section 230, the legal shield that lets platforms moderate without being treated like publishers.
His message: “If you fact check or silence my speech, you might lose your immunity.”
He even threatened to pull broadcast licenses from CNN and NBC, accusing them of spreading “fake news.” It was a brazen move, no doubt, less nudge, more bludgeon.
And the reaction? Instant and ferocious. Media pundits, Democrats, free speech advocates. They cried “authoritarian!” “Censorship!” “Weaponization of government!” And the courts agreed, mostly swatting down Trump’s attempts as overreach.
The Double Barreled Standard
Here’s where the bourbon bites: Swap the labels, and the hooch tastes different depending on who’s buying.
Trump’s blunt force play was condemned as suppression. Biden’s more polite, bureaucratic dance? Framed as “public health communication.” Trump’s threats got called out as authoritarian. Biden’s pressure gets a pass as “responsible governance.”
The only real difference? The branding.
Even the public’s got a partisan palate. Polls show 70 percent of Democrats believe misinformation justifies government involvement in tech moderation. Meanwhile, Republicans, once silent on Trump’s saloon brawl style, now holler “censorship!” under Biden. The hypocrisy isn’t just in the halls of power, it’s soaked into the base like spilled whiskey on a bar mat.
What’s Really at Stake
Look, this isn’t about defending Trump or canonizing Biden. Both used the weight of government to influence the digital public square. One was loud. The other was slick. But the principle doesn’t change:
Government meddling in speech, whether through threats or friendly nudges, should make every American reach for the Constitution before they reach for another pour.
Because today it’s “misinformation” on vaccines or elections. Tomorrow? It could be “extremism” on climate, gender, or whatever cause of the week rattles D.C.’s nerves.
In the 2025 afterglow, Trump back in the saddle, pledging to “restore free speech” while eyeing his own digital enemies. The lesson burns like swallowed fire: Power doesn’t care about principle. It pours what suits the palate.
Both sides jawboned. Both twisted arms. But the real rotgut isn’t in what they said. It’s in the hypocrisy we swallow without a chaser.
So here’s to free speech, folks. Uncorked, undiluted, and untamed. May the next round be straight truth. No buzzwords. No “misinfo” labels. No partisan flavoring.
