FREE JOHN FLYNN

In America, we pride ourselves on being the land of the free—a place where voices from all sides of the political spectrum can be heard. Yet the past few years have revealed something deeply troubling: a coordinated effort to silence conservative voices, particularly during COVID-19 and the 2020 and 2022 election cycles. Recent FOIA disclosures have peeled back the curtain, and what they show should alarm every American, regardless of political affiliation.

Documents reveal that high-ranking officials—from the Secretary of State’s office to federal security organizations like CISecurity—were not just monitoring speech but actively pressuring platforms to take down content. Todd O’Boyle, among others with long-standing Democratic ties, played a role in shaping narratives and controlling who could participate in public discourse. This was not simply about stopping “misinformation”; it was about silencing one side of the debate, particularly those aligned with President Trump, MAGA policies, or questioning the government’s handling of COVID-19 and elections.

Consider the case of John J. Flynn, a political candidate from Norwalk, Connecticut. Flynn dared to speak openly about election irregularities and government overreach in healthcare as it pertains to 5g concerns. Instead of allowing voters to weigh his ideas, social media platforms pulled his content and suspended his accounts—effectively muting a candidate in the middle of an election. That is not just censorship; it is interference in the democratic process.

The troubling part is how normalized this has become. If certain viewpoints can be labeled “dangerous” simply because they challenge those in power, then free speech ceases to exist in practice. What’s left is government-approved speech—something you would expect in authoritarian regimes, not in the United States.

The question we must ask is simple: in what universe is this acceptable? When did it become permissible for government officials to collude with private companies to determine which Americans are allowed to speak and which are not? The First Amendment was not designed to protect only popular opinions. It was written precisely to protect speech that challenges authority, unsettles the majority, or questions official narratives.

The suppression of dissent—whether about elections, healthcare, or political candidates—undermines trust in institutions and deepens divisions in our country. If democracy is to mean anything, it must mean that citizens are free to speak, free to question, and free to participate in the marketplace of ideas without government interference.

The disclosures we’re now seeing should not just be discouraging; they should be a call to action. Censorship is not a partisan issue—it is an American issue. The question is whether we will confront it, or whether we will quietly accept a new reality where free speech is conditional, monitored, and suppressed.

Because if we accept that, then the “land of the free” becomes nothing more than a slogan.

​

Dawn Mattos

​

​