A newly released report alleges that the Biden administration withheld information that pointed to a lab leak in China as the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic from U.S. intelligence agencies, while working with social media platforms to suppress dissenting voices challenging the official narrative. According to the Wall Street Journal, the report claims that the suppression of alternative viewpoints was part of a broader effort to control the narrative surrounding the origins of the virus, particularly the zoonotic theory that COVID-19 jumped from animals to humans.

The debate over the origins of COVID-19 has become a focal point for concerns over censorship and government influence. While some agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), supported the zoonotic theory, the FBI stood apart, asserting with “moderate confidence” that a lab leak was the most plausible origin. However, despite this assessment, the FBI was excluded from an intelligence briefing for President Biden in August 2021, leading to concerns from officials within the agency about the omission of their perspective.

The Wall Street Journal’s report highlights the role of social media platforms in silencing opposing views. Public health officials and government agencies allegedly collaborated with platforms like Facebook to remove or flag content that questioned the zoonotic-origin theory. Rep. Jim Jordan, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, revealed that the White House had pressured Facebook to censor narratives contrary to the official stance.

The report also raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest. Adrienne Keen, a former State Department official, was involved in advocating for the World Health Organization’s (WHO) zoonotic findings despite criticism of the WHO’s reliance on data from China. This involvement has led to questions about her impartiality, with some critics suggesting that her work may have discredited the lab leak hypothesis to protect Chinese interests.

Domestic efforts to suppress the lab leak theory were also widespread. Public health officials dismissed the theory as a baseless conspiracy, and social media platforms removed content that raised doubts about the official narrative. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) later acknowledged funding gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which could have played a role in the virus’s development, but questions about the research were often dismissed as unscientific or even racist.

Internally, the suppression of information extended to government agencies. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI) reportedly concluded that the virus was genetically engineered in a Chinese lab, but up to 90% of their findings were excluded from official reports. The DIA’s Inspector General has launched an investigation into the suppression of these critical contributions.

As more evidence supporting the lab leak theory has emerged, support for this explanation has grown. In 2023, the Department of Energy joined the FBI in concluding that a lab leak was the most likely origin of the virus. Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe has also supported this view, citing the intelligence community’s access to the most information on the matter.

The growing consensus around the lab leak theory raises questions about why it was suppressed for so long. Critics argue that the censorship and control of narratives not only delayed crucial inquiry into the origins of COVID-19 but also undermined public trust in the institutions tasked with managing the pandemic.

This case highlights broader concerns about government-directed censorship and its impact on free speech. The suppression of alternative viewpoints, especially when it comes to critical issues like the origins of a global pandemic, has far-reaching implications for public discourse and democratic principles.

Elon Musk threatened legal action on Thursday against an alliance of major companies, accusing them of participating in an “advertising boycott racket” that has exacerbated a revenue decline at his social media platform, X.

Musk, who acquired the company formerly known as Twitter for $44 billion in 2022, made the announcement in response to a video of Daily Wire founder Ben Shapiro’s Congressional testimony. Shapiro’s testimony addressed alleged collusion by advertisers against right-leaning platforms.

“Having seen the evidence unearthed today by Congress, X has no choice but to file suit against the perpetrators and collaborators in the advertising boycott racket,” Musk wrote on X. “Hopefully, some states will consider criminal prosecution.”

Elon Musk’s threat follows Shapiro’s testimony before a House Judiciary panel during a hearing entitled “Collusion in the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM).” GARM, an initiative by the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), aims to tackle harmful content on digital media platforms and its monetization through advertising. WFA’s members, including Disney, Coca-Cola, Toyota, and Hershey, represent nearly 90% of global advertising spending, amounting to almost $1 trillion annually.

During the hearing, Shapiro and lawmakers focused on the conduct of GARM chief Robert Rakowitz. An interim House staff report highlighted Rakowitz’s questionable behavior, including an internal email from February 9, 2023, where Rakowitz appeared to boast about X being “80% below revenue forecasts” after GARM’s challenges on brand safety issues. Rakowitz claimed the email was a “self-effacing joke.”

The House report also unveiled biases against conservative media. An email exchange from October 2021 between Rakowitz and John Montgomery, EVP of global brand safety at GroupM, the world’s largest media buying agency, discussed blocking certain news outlets like Fox News, The Daily Wire, and Breitbart News. Montgomery admitted, “As much as we hated their ideology and bulls—t, we couldn’t really justify blocking them for misguided opinion,” but noted that they monitored these outlets closely and acted when they “crossed the line.”

In light of these revelations, Musk has urged for both civil and criminal repercussions. “Hopefully, some states will consider criminal prosecution,” Musk stated, highlighting the severity of the alleged collusion.

Representatives for GARM, GroupM, and X did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Musk’s post. Shapiro, in his opening statement shared by Musk, called on Congress to address what he termed as “censorship cartels like GARM and executive branch agencies” that oppose conservative views. The subcommittee is currently evaluating whether existing civil and criminal penalties, along with antitrust law enforcement efforts, are adequate to deter anti-competitive collusion in online advertising.

This development underscores the growing tension between major tech platforms, advertisers, and political entities over content moderation and free speech. Musk’s aggressive stance signals a potential legal battle that could have significant implications for the future of digital advertising and media bias.

As the situation evolves, the spotlight remains on whether the legal threats will materialize and how they might influence the practices of global advertisers and media platforms.

A journalist from the Tennessee Star is being summoned to appear in court and faces jail time for publishing journal writings of transgender shooter Audrey Hale, sparking freedom of the press concerns.

The article revealed that Hale, who shot and killed six people at the Covenant Elementary School in March 2023, wrote about her ‘imaginary penis’ and how she would ‘kill’ to get puberty blockers weeks before her horrific act.

For more than a year, Nashville Chancellor I’Ashea Myles has been presiding over a public records case wherein the plaintiffs are suing to get the right to release documents related to the shooting. Families of the victims are on the exact opposite side, trying to bury the documents and keep them out of the public eye.

But since the case is ongoing, Myles is claiming that the Tennessee Star may have published ‘certain purported documents and information’ that should have remained under seal.

At Myle’s request, Tennessee Star editor-in-chief Michael Patrick Leahy will appear in court Monday to explain why his news outlet didn’t violate the court order.

Michael Patrick Leahy, CEO of Star News Digital Media and editor-in-chief of the Tennessee Star
Nashville Chancellor I’Ashea Myles, who’s been presiding over the public records fight over Audrey Hale’s manifesto
Michael Patrick Leahy, left, is the CEO of Star News Digital Media and editor-in-chief of the Tennessee Star. Nashville Chancellor I’Ashea Myles has ordered Leahy to appear in court because of the Star’s reporting on Audrey Hale’s journal writings.

Leahy, who also serves as CEO of Star News Digital Media, publisher of the Tennessee Star, claims his outlet has done nothing wrong throughout the course of its reporting.

The Star has claimed a June 5 story didn’t actually publish any of the leaked images of her journal entries but just snippets from it, reported the Associated Press.

‘This could raise First Amendment issues,’ said Deborah Fisher, Tennessee Coalition for Open Government’s executive director.

Jeff Clark, a former US attorney, also sided with Leahy, saying he was just doing a journalist’s job and getting crucial information about the shooting.

Leahy ‘is in jeopardy in Tennessee state court for trying to get out the Covenant Killer Audrey Hale’s “manifesto.” And presumably other info about her,’ Clark wrote on X.

‘The American people deserve to know the details of how Hale was radicalized by the trans agenda. And the victims’ family especially deserve to learn that information.’

Hale, 28, was a transgender artist, who identified as a male named Aiden, shot her way into the Tennessee elementary school in March 2023, killing three adults and three nine-year-olds, before responding officers killed her.

Officers found her writings in the car she drove to the elementary school, and the Star reported on ‘nearly four dozen images of notebook pages written by Hale’ provided by a source familiar with the investigation.

Hale wrote about anger toward her parents, how she hated her conservative Christian upbringing, and how she had suffered because hormone blockers were not available when she was a child.

One of her entries was ‘My Imaginary Penis’ and included a crude drawing, according to the Tennessee Star.

‘My penis exists in my head. I swear to god I’m a male,’ Hale wrote in the papers.

She then wrote about her desire to have a penis so she could have sex with a woman, in her assumed identity as Aiden.

She wrote about how using that name on a job application for a delivery position led to issues with the company’s background check.

Hale also said that being raised as a girl was ‘torture.’

She worried that high school classmates would call her ‘dyke or a f*‘, she wrote.

That all changed when she learned about transgenderism in her early 20s.

‘I finally found the answer — that changing one’s gender is possible,’ wrote Hale.

After the Star’s reporting throughout June, the Nashville’s Metropolitan Police said in a statement that ‘it is concerned about the alleged leak, and we, like others, would like to know from where it came.’

Immediately following the shooting, Nashville’s police chief John Drake said Hale’s manifesto as well as the hand-drawn maps found in her car would eventually be made public.

Now, despite the leaks, both city police and the FBI say the material shouldn’t be released because the information could damage any potential investigation.

In a statement to The Center Square, Leahy said he plans to defend his and his outlet’s rights to publish relevant information about the shooting.

‘Yes, I intend to appear in court on Monday at 11 am, along with my attorneys, Nick Barry with America First Legal and Daniel Horwitz, a nationally recognized First Amendment attorney based here in Nashville,’ Leahy told The Center Square Sunday.