(Julianna Frieman, Headline USA) Social-media influencers slammed Axios on Thursday, celebrating the virtues of free speech after the leftist news outlet tried to incite panic in gay and transgender people about the danger of words they might encounter on the internet.
Weighing in on Meta’s newly announced decision to swap its politically biased fact-checkers for a “Community Notes” system like X, Axios issued a dire warning to LGBT leftists that the words “filth” and “it” could now be used against them.
Under Meta's newly relaxed moderation policies, women can be compared to household objects, ethnic groups can be called "filth," users can call for the exclusion of gay people from certain professions and people can refer to a transgender or non-binary person as an "it."
— Axios (@axios) January 9, 2025
“Under Meta’s newly relaxed moderation policies, women can be compared to household objects, ethnic groups can be called ‘filth,’ users can call for the exclusion of gay people from certain professions and people can refer to a transgender or non-binary person as an ‘it,’” Axios wrote on X.
A follow-up post directed followers to “go deeper” with an article by Ina Fried, titled “Meta’s new policies open the gate to hate.”
Citing the spokesperson for a pro-censorship activist group, Meedan, as one of “[m]any experts” who would substantiate her wild claims, Fried said allowing unfettered speech on social-media networks could “fuel real-world violence” and “even promote genocide, as has happened in Myanmar and elsewhere.”
The unhinged article also cited “experts” from the LGBT activist group GLAAD, who said that Meta’s used of the “outdated term” transgenderism in its policy statement showed that the company hated trans people.
“For a legitimate company to employ intentionally anti-LGBT dog whistle language in such a dehumanizing and overly bigoted way in its own hate speech policy is beyond comprehension,” said Jenni Olson, senior director for social safety at GLAAD.
But free-speech advocates gave Axios a taste of what was restored on Facebook and Instagram, deriding the outlet’s apparent inability to understand the First Amendment.
“It’s incredible that journalists don’t understand basic concepts like free speech,” wrote Leigh Wolf, executive producer of the “Ruthless” podcast, in response to the X post.
“Polite speech doesn’t need protection,” added Wolf, a retired Marine Corps. captain who served two tours of duty in Afghanistan. “The first amendment exists specifically to protect this type of objectionable speech.”
It’s incredible that journalists don’t understand basic concepts like free speech.
Polite speech doesn’t need protection. The first amendment exists specifically to protect this type of objectionable speech.
— 🐺 (@LeighWolf) January 9, 2025
Ian Miles Cheong, co-host of the “Other View“ podcast, observed that the previous Meta policies created a double standard on free-speech rights.
“Under Meta’s previous policies, only men could be compared to household objects, only white people could be called ‘filth,’ and users could call for the exclusion of straight people from certain professions and refer to non-transgender people as c*s,” he noted.
Under Meta's previous policies, only men could be compared to household objects, only white people could be called "filth," and users could call for the exclusion of straight people from certain professions and refer to non-transgender people as c*s.
— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) January 9, 2025
Michael Shellenberger—one of a handful of investigative reporters chosen by X-owner Elon Musk to release the Twitter Files following his purchase of the company—said that Axios’s report might only be scratching the surface when it came to things that could trigger oversensitive snowflakes.
“If you think what Meta/Facebook allows is bad, wait until you hear about the U.S. Constitution,” he wrote.
If you think what Meta/Facebook allows is bad, wait until you hear about the U.S. Constitution
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) January 9, 2025
Not all of the criticism was directed at Axios’s selective understanding of “equal rights” however.
Others blasted the article for its tone-deaf concern with social-media censorship when there were bigger things to fixate on.
One pro-MAGA mom in North Carolina, @jammles9, sought to put the Left’s problems into perspective.
“Let’s focus on how southern California is burning to the damn ground,” she wrote. “Have some humanity!!!!”
Let’s focus on how southern California is burning to the damn ground! Have some humanity!!!! pic.twitter.com/vFQOGRvbxy
— Jammles (@jammles9) January 9, 2025
Julianna Frieman is a freelance writer published by the Daily Caller, Headline USA, The Federalist, and the American Spectator. Follow her on Twitter at @JuliannaFrieman.
