![\"\"](\"https:\/\/politicalbourbon.com\/en\/file\/2025\/09\/bad-hooch.png\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nIt wasn\u2019t just chatter. Behind the scenes, officials were sending curated lists of \u201cproblematic content,\u201d hinting at the potential fallout of letting so-called \u201cmisinformation\u201d run wild. “Hey, Zuck, Dorsey\u2014might 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 \u201cDisinformation Governance Board\u201d that got shut down faster than a speakeasy raid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Critics hollered: coercion! First Amendment foul! And that cry became a court case\u2014Murthy v. Missouri<\/strong>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The verdict? On June 26, 2024<\/strong>, the Court ruled 6 to 3 in favor of the Biden administration<\/strong>. The majority said the plaintiffs lacked standing\u2014couldn’t prove direct harm. Chief Justice Roberts served up the ruling smooth: so long as there\u2019s no overt coercion or threats, the government is free to \u201ccommunicate\u201d with platforms. Translation? Uncle Sam can keep whispering in Silicon Valley\u2019s ear, just don\u2019t catch him with his hand on the ban button.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The dissenters\u2014Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch\u2014weren\u2019t buying it. They saw a dangerous precedent brewing, one where government \u201csuggestions\u201d come with an unspoken threat, chilling lawful speech under the banner of public safety.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019s seal of approval hasn\u2019t exactly been peeled off the label.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now rewind the clock to the Trump taproom, 2017 to 2021. The Donald wasn\u2019t subtle\u2014he 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\u2019s response? Rage and an Executive Order aimed at gutting Section 230<\/strong>, the legal shield that lets platforms moderate without being treated like publishers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n His message: \u201cIf you fact check or silence my speech, you might lose your immunity.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n He even threatened to pull broadcast licenses from CNN and NBC, accusing them of spreading \u201cfake news.\u201d It was a brazen move, no doubt, less nudge, more bludgeon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And the reaction? Instant and ferocious. Media pundits, Democrats, free speech advocates. They cried \u201cauthoritarian!\u201d \u201cCensorship!\u201d \u201cWeaponization of government!\u201d And the courts agreed, mostly swatting down Trump\u2019s attempts as overreach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here\u2019s where the bourbon bites: Swap the labels, and the hooch tastes different depending on who\u2019s buying.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump\u2019s blunt force play was condemned as suppression. Biden\u2019s more polite, bureaucratic dance? Framed as \u201cpublic health communication.\u201d Trump\u2019s threats got called out as authoritarian. Biden\u2019s pressure gets a pass as \u201cresponsible governance.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The only real difference? The branding.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Even the public’s got a partisan palate. Polls show 70 percent of Democrats<\/strong> believe misinformation justifies government involvement in tech moderation. Meanwhile, Republicans, once silent on Trump\u2019s saloon brawl style, now holler \u201ccensorship!\u201d under Biden. The hypocrisy isn’t just in the halls of power, it\u2019s soaked into the base like spilled whiskey on a bar mat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Look, this isn\u2019t 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\u2019t change:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Government meddling in speech, whether through threats or friendly nudges, should make every American reach for the Constitution before they reach for another pour.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Because today it\u2019s \u201cmisinformation\u201d on vaccines or elections. Tomorrow? It could be \u201cextremism\u201d on climate, gender, or whatever cause of the week rattles D.C.’s nerves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the 2025 afterglow, Trump back in the saddle, pledging to \u201crestore free speech\u201d while eyeing his own digital enemies. The lesson burns like swallowed fire: Power doesn\u2019t care about principle. It pours what suits the palate.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Both sides jawboned. Both twisted arms. But the real rotgut isn\u2019t in what they said. It\u2019s in the hypocrisy we swallow without a chaser.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So here\u2019s to free speech, folks. Uncorked, undiluted, and untamed. May the next round be straight truth. No buzzwords. No \u201cmisinfo\u201d labels. No partisan flavoring.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3436,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[54,47],"tags":[2527,5165,5157,5162,5164,5150,5156,5163,5154,5167,5152,5153,5161,5166,5158,5160,5151,5155,5159,4921],"class_list":{"0":"post-3432","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-bourbon","8":"category-politics","9":"tag-biden-administration","10":"tag-big-tech","11":"tag-content-moderation","12":"tag-digital-rights","13":"tag-disinformation","14":"tag-first-amendment","15":"tag-free-speech","16":"tag-freedom-of-expression","17":"tag-government-overreach","18":"tag-jawboning","19":"tag-misinformation","20":"tag-murthy-v-missouri","21":"tag-partisan-politics","22":"tag-political-commentary","23":"tag-political-hypocrisy","24":"tag-section-230","25":"tag-social-media-censorship","26":"tag-supreme-court-ruling","27":"tag-tech-regulation","28":"tag-trump-administration"},"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/politicalbourbon.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3432","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/politicalbourbon.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/politicalbourbon.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/politicalbourbon.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/politicalbourbon.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3432"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/politicalbourbon.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3432\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3437,"href":"https:\/\/politicalbourbon.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3432\/revisions\/3437"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/politicalbourbon.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3436"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/politicalbourbon.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3432"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/politicalbourbon.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3432"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/politicalbourbon.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3432"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\"](\"https:\/\/politicalbourbon.com\/en\/file\/2025\/09\/speakeasyu-1024x1024.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nMeanwhile, in the Trump Taproom<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nThe Double Barreled Standard<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nWhat\u2019s Really at Stake<\/h3>\n\n\n\n