Antiwar or Anti-Speech?

One of the things I admire most about this country is every citizens' opportunity to hold opposing viewpoints without fear of government censure or retribution. However, the prospect of censorship appears to be closer than ever. 

Websites like antiwar.com and theamericanconservative.com are completely necessary but difficult to find. Now, in my opinion, journalists should report only the facts when writing news pieces. There should be no presumption that a journalist's ideas are influenced by what they write. Simply by looking at the titles of the articles on www.antiwar.com, I can tell they are opinionated. For instance, "The Malevolence of the Pentagon's Brilliant Strategy in Ukraine" shows that the post will almost certainly have an opinionated tone. On the front page of antiwar.com is the book cover of a California radio host, Scott Horton, addressing putting an end to the war on terrorism.

While some readers may be turned off by the highly sarcastic or politically charged language, these websites are not for those users. There is a difference that I think today's media outlets are forgetting: opinion pieces are for opinions while journalistic pieces are for the facts. It's wonderful to have both but too many news sources have turned their journalists into writers who can't report a single piece without spinning it to fit their viewpoint.

Without getting into too many conspiracy theories, I believe that the government has no problem trying to silence viewpoints that go against their own agenda. What can we do about it? Keep finding sites like this, read their posted articles and maybe even choose to support them. Even if you don't agree with the authors viewpoints, we must still ensure that our country never gets to a point where the government decides what you are allowed to say.