Trump on Freedom of Speech

The Battle for Free Speech: Defending Our Fundamental Right Against Censorship and Control.

The Battle for Free Speech: Defending Our Fundamental Right Against Censorship and Control.

Throughout my 50 year professional medical career, I've been censored by simply being ignored. My calls for better health practices and for the adoption of nutritional medicine have consistently fallen on deaf ears. It’s deeply frustrating to watch people suffer and even die from preventable conditions because the system insists on a narrow, drug-focused approach.

Cancer patients, in particular, get a raw deal; they're often pushed toward conventional treatments with little consideration of integrative, supportive therapies that could truly improve their quality of life. Politicians pay lip service to health improvement, but their actions rarely reflect a commitment to real change. Meanwhile, bureaucrats seem to attack anything that challenges the status quo, leaving no room for the kind of innovation that could actually reduce disease and promote genuine well-being, the sort of innovation we started in Melbourne in 1978 with the Orthomolecular Medical Association of Australia.

In the 1970s, I found some support in the media, but over the years, that has gradually disappeared. Big Pharma’s influence has become pervasive, infiltrating nearly every level of decision-making in healthcare. This trend reached its peak during the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, where the pharmaceutical agenda became all too clear, sidelining any early treatment and definitely no preventative measures such as vitamin D supplementation.

Despite these challenges, I remain committed to advocating for a more holistic, preventive approach to healthcare. Although the path has often been lonely and frustrating, I believe in the value of nutritional and integrative medicine, and I’m determined to keep pushing for a healthcare system that prioritises patient well-being over profit. This is the reason that I argue strongly for the fundamental right of freedom of speech; the cornerstone of democratic society and a fundamental human right that empowers individuals to express their beliefs, engage in critical discourse, and hold those in power accountable.

Freedom of speech is essential to our liberties, enabling diverse voices to be heard and helping ideas to flourish through open discussion. However, this fundamental right is under attack as an alliance of left-wing activists, corporate media, and government agencies work to impose ever-stricter controls over public dialogue. By manipulating information flow, labeling viewpoints as "misinformation" or "disinformation," and promoting censorship policies, this alliance seeks to shape the narratives we encounter and influence our understanding of important issues—from elections to public health.

Over the past few years, the erosion of free speech has accelerated as governments, particularly in Western democracies, enact policies that penalize those who challenge the mainstream narrative. The role of deep-state bureaucrats and activist groups in enforcing censorship under the guise of combating misinformation cannot be underestimated. These forces often operate with little accountability, using legislation and regulation as tools to stifle dissenting views. One particularly troubling example is the enactment of misinformation and disinformation laws. These laws purport to protect society from harmful falsehoods but are often used to suppress information that challenges official narratives.

The legislation categorises certain topics and perspectives as "dangerous" and grants governments the authority to silence them. As a result, ideas that might otherwise prompt healthy debate are shut down before they can reach the public. Such measures are no less than an affront to democratic principles. Free societies have long recognised that the marketplace of ideas is essential to revealing the truth; when debate is stifled, truth becomes a casualty. To prevent this, it is crucial to reclaim our right to free speech by dismantling the censorship regime and returning to a public square where all voices can be heard.

A disturbing facet of this censorship complex is the collaboration between corporate media outlets, tech companies, and government officials to suppress information. News media giants and organizations like the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) are part of what has become a "censorship cartel" that works hand-in-hand with Big Tech to control which stories gain traction and which are buried. This partnership is highly effective because it taps into multiple channels of influence. Through the coordination of algorithms, editorial biases, and content labels, these entities create an environment where only sanctioned narratives are allowed prominence, while alternative views are systematically marginalized or erased.

In effect, this alliance is an attempt to privatise censorship. Rather than the government directly policing speech, it outsources the task to corporations that, in turn, act as gatekeepers for information. Because these companies often operate internationally, their censorship policies affect global audiences, transcending national laws and challenging citizens' rights to freedom of speech. This phenomenon leads to an information monopoly where only select viewpoints—those deemed acceptable by elites or conflicted academics—are permitted to reach the masses.

Click the picture below to hear Senator Malcolm Roberts protect Freedom of Speech

The chilling effect of censorship undermines the very foundation of democratic engagement. In a society where certain ideas cannot be expressed openly, citizens are deprived of the ability to make fully informed decisions. This erosion of public debate has been particularly evident in areas like public health, where censorship has limited discussion on vital topics. From the initial responses to the COVID-19 pandemic to debates on vaccine efficacy, dissenting opinions have been routinely suppressed, often in favour of state-sanctioned views.

The long-term danger of such censorship is clear: when people are prevented from discussing and debating real issues, society becomes susceptible to dogma and propaganda. By insulating the public from alternative viewpoints, the censorship regime not only denies us the right to think critically but also imposes an authoritarian model of truth. This atmosphere of repression fuels distrust, as people increasingly recognise that they are not receiving the full picture. Consequently, society becomes more polarised, with citizens divided between those who trust official sources and those who seek information elsewhere.

The Australian misinformation and disinformation legislation represents a serious threat to open debate, particularly within the medical profession, where open discussion and dissent are essential to advancing knowledge and protecting public health. This bill, which aims to curb "misinformation" and "disinformation," grants government authorities and aligned organisations the power to penalise those who offer perspectives or research findings that deviate from official narratives. While the intention behind this legislation may be to limit the spread of harmful falsehoods, in practice, it has been used to silence dissent within the medical community and stifle critical discourse around health-related issues, especially in relation to COVID-19 policies and vaccination programs.

The enforcement of this legislation has had profound implications. Many medical professionals who raised legitimate concerns about the COVID-19 vaccination program, including questions about the efficacy and safety of vaccines or alternative treatments, faced censorship, professional repercussions, the threat of disciplinary action or suspension. Rather than fostering an environment where evidence could be openly examined, these measures created a chilling effect, discouraging doctors and scientists from speaking up, even when they had credible, research-based reasons to question policies. Consequently, alternative viewpoints and data that might have informed the public of potential risks or helped shape safer public health strategies were suppressed, contributing to tragic outcomes, excess ‘unexplained’ deaths and a burden of enormous numbers of patients with serious diseases.

The COVID-19 vaccination program, while intended to protect public health, was administered under extraordinary political (not health) pressures and with limited public debate on the possible long-term impacts of novel mRNA technologies. Many of the risks and concerns, particularly regarding the vaccine's effects on specific populations, were dismissed or underreported, definitely due to the climate of censorship created by bureaucrats. Reports from around the world and within Australia have indicated that vaccination has caused significant unnecessary deaths and serious adverse effects in many unfortunate individuals. In Australia, many people believe that the lack of transparent discussion contributed to an environment where the public, not fully informed about possible risks, has lost trust and confidence in the government and related institutions.

The suppression of medical professionals' voices, including dissenting views within the medical community, has played a role in preventable suffering and death. Those who sought to challenge the dominant narrative or advocate for more cautious, personalised approaches to the COVID-19 response were effectively silenced, leading to the tragic tens of thousands of Australians having been adversely affected or losing their lives due to unexamined vaccination policies.

To prevent similar outcomes in the future, it is essential to stop this legislation and totally ban any form of censorship so that medical professionals can exercise their right to free expression and provide full, free and informed consent to their patients without fear of retribution. Censorship of the profession should never have occurred in the first place. Open discourse in medicine is essential for advancing understanding, uncovering potential risks, and safeguarding public health. By fostering a regulatory environment that supports free speech and robust debate, Australia can ensure that all voices within the medical community are heard, ultimately leading to more informed, evidence-based health policies that protect and promote the well-being of every citizen.

From Trumps declaration, to reclaim freedom of speech, it is necessary to dismantle the censorship apparatus that currently limits public discourse. Achieving this goal will require bold measures at multiple levels of governance and society. Firstly, legislation must be passed to ban federal and state agents from colluding with any business or individual to censor, categorise, or impede lawful speech. Public officials must be held accountable for attempts to manipulate information, and any agency found to engage in censorship activities should be defunded.

Further, public money should never be used to label speech as "misinformation" or "disinformation." In a free society, it is not the role of government or an agency to determine the truth; instead, the truth should emerge through open discourse. By removing public funding from such labelling efforts, society would reduce the government's power to impose its narrative on the public. This would also prevent taxpayer dollars from being used against citizens' interests and freedom.

Moreover, identifying and prosecuting federal bureaucrats who have engaged in censorship would signal a commitment to protecting civil liberties. Civil rights laws should be enforced rigorously to prosecute those who infringe on free speech. This would discourage future attempts at censorship and create a precedent that aligns with democratic principles. Free speech should not be treated as a privilege but as an inviolable right that can only be limited under the most extreme and justifiable circumstances.

The right to free speech is fundamental to human liberty and democracy. Yet, this right is under unprecedented attack from a coalition of activists, corporate media, and government officials seeking to control the flow of information. Their efforts, which exploit legislation on misinformation and disinformation, create a climate of repression that undermines society's ability to engage in open, honest discourse. It is imperative that we identify and dismantle this censorship complex and its ‘bad’ actors and restore the principle of free expression.

By passing laws to prevent government-corporate collusion in censorship, banning the use of public money to label speech, and prosecuting those who infringe on our rights, we can begin to reclaim our democratic freedoms. Ultimately, the defence of free speech is a fight for the spirits and soul of a democratic society, and it is a battle that every citizen should be willing to join. I will keep fighting for what I understand are the facts based on data and good science and the truth derived therefrom. I believe in the value of nutritional and integrative medicine, and I’m determined to keep pushing for a healthcare system that prioritises patient well-being over profit. This is the reason that I argue strongly for the fundamental right of freedom of speech which empowers individuals to express their beliefs, engage in critical discourse, and hold those in power accountable.

Only by ensuring that by fighting for all voices to be heard, without interference or suppression, can we protect the integrity of our society and safeguard the freedoms that define us and create a truly healthy society in every respect. Donald Trump must keep his promises and we in Australia must find and support leaders that will follow suit to protect this fundamental right-the Freedom of Speech.

Ian Brighthope