How modern life mutated the human body in 50 years: ‘Life and death effects’

 Humans are evolving – but not exactly for the better.

Research has shown that chemicals in the foods we eat, pollution in the air we breathe and toxins in the goods we use on a daily basis are changing our bodies in bizarre ways — from enlarged testicles to “precocious puberty” periods at 9 months old.

“These are chemicals that literally make us sicker, fatter, and poor,” Leo Trasande, an expert in children’s environmental health at NYU Langone Health and author of “Sicker Fatter Poorer,” told The Post.

Additives, chemicals and other byproducts of manufacturing have pervaded our day-to-day — but how exactly they affect the human body is still being revealed nearly 50 years after the landmark Toxic Substances Control Act debuted. One of the main impacts is messing with our hormones.

“Hormones are basic signaling molecules underlying every basic biological function [known] to man, from temperature, metabolism to salt, sugar, and even sex,” Trasande explained. “So these are not just lifestyle effects. These are life and death effects.”

Of the more than 40,000 chemicals used in US products, fewer than 1% have been thoroughly tested for human safety, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

So, just about anything we buy and consume — including processed foods, fragrant soaps, non-stick cookware, gas stoves, cosmetics, plastic bottles, paint, haircare and menstrual hygiene products, to name merely a few — have been shown to increase our exposure to harmful agents with the power to infiltrate organs and play with hormonal balance.

All the disturbing ways junk food, chemicals and pollution are changing the body.

NY Post composite

But before you rush to raid your pantries, closets and cabinets, the effort to avoid potentially harmful toxins entirely may be out of our hands for now. Simple things can be done to reduce exposure: eat organic, don’t use products with PFAS or phthlates, crack open a window to recirculate air.

“It doesn’t mean you zero out your exposure, it doesn’t mean there aren’t harmful exposures that are remaining,” Trasande continued, “but these are steps that are low hanging fruit for the betterment of your health. So again, there is so much hope, and so much opportunity to reduce your exposure to these chemicals.”

While their prevalence might seem daunting, the American Chemistry Council, Inc., which represents the interests of American chemical companies, told The Post concerned consumers should “feel confident” in the products they buy. The council said such products are overseen by six different federal agencies that ensure the products’ safety. (When also reached for comment, the nonprofit American Chemical Society, which supports scientific inquiry in the field, simply deferred The Post to the ACC’s comments.)

“We support strong science and risk-based regulations that are protective of human health and our environment,” the ACC said in a statement.

Nevertheless, scientists continue to uncover the alarming truth about how everyday foods, goods and products are changing us. Read on to learn how:

Brain

The first step to battling mental illness may be to cut out the harms that promote it. Studies have linked ultra-processed foods to depression, suggesting that your Happy Meal might be doing the opposite. Frequenting the junk food aisle has also been linked to impaired memory, cognitive decline and a 25% increased risk of dementia with every 10% climb in junk food intake. Moreover, foods high in sugar and fat appear to make us crave those foods even more — by tapping into the addiction centers of our brains.

Other research suggests the smallest doses of air pollution can have big effects on the brain. Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers found that poor air quality impacted chess players’ abilities to make critical game time choices, while a similar recent study noted that even brief exposure to diesel exhaust decreased “functional connectivity” between nerve cells in the brain.

Eyes & ears

We know that beta-carotene in carrots and other veggies, which converts to vitamin A in the body, is good for the eyes — so much so that the lack thereof can cause blindness. One case study proved as much, linking a teen’s blindness to the patient’s poor diet. In 2019, doctors reported iron and vitamin B12 deficiency — but as years went on, the patient began to lose his ability to see and hear, as a result of cellular nerve damage caused by a severe absence of nutrients.

Lungs

It’s no secret that poor air quality affects the lungs, but your staple household scents could be doing equal harm. One expert urged regular candle lighters to not blow off her warning: Burning candles releases “particulates” that go “directly to our lungs.”

While the scientific jury’s still out on just how harmful the scented sconces can be, other recent studies have linked chemicals released by popular household cleaners and gas stoves to respiratory conditions, such as asthma or bronchitis.

One study to investigate the effects of volatile organic compounds — particularly limonene in citrusy-smelling candles and cleaners — demonstrated that these particles are small enough to “travel deep” into our respiratory system and brain, potentially causing illness, irritation and headaches or contribute to organ damage and cancer diagnosis.

A first of its kind study found that people exposed to the highest levels of one type of “forever” chemical — found in nonstick cookware, among other products — were 4½ times more likely to develop liver cancer.

Getty Images
Liver

If you thought your gas stove was dangerous, just wait until you find out about “forever chemicals” in your non-stick pans (and countless other products, too). Coated cookware contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), that build up in the body and environment over time (hence “forever”). Now, scientists believe that PFAS could encourage endocrine diseases, and put consumers at 350% greater odds of developing liver cancer.

Blood

Beauty is pain – or, in some cases, chronic illness.

Earlier this year, experts discovered that phthalates in popular nail polishes and shampoos, which make the products more elastic and durable, was linked to a 30% to 63% increased risk of Type 2 diabetes, a disease affecting blood glucose regulation, in one cohort of study participants. These compounds, detected in over 80% of fast foods, as well as personal care products, packaging, children’s toys and more, are known to disrupt the body’s flow of hormones in the bloodstream.

Gut

Trust your gut – the chemicals in your favorite foods could be toxic.

Often found in candies, cakes and even icing, the shocking reality of food coloring is the ultimate party pooper. Scientists now know that dyes used in 90% of US-manufactured foods — Red 40, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6 — alter cells in the gut and could harm digestive function, potentially leading to the development of Crohn’s disease and colitis.

Meanwhile, the accumulation of microplastics in the body — equal to the weight of one credit card per week on average — can trigger an immune response and activate inflammation, which may pave the way for the growth of cancerous tumors and metabolic diseases.

Penis & testes

If you’ve got BDE, we’ve got potentially bad news. The average penis size in men has increased from 4.8 to 6 inches in just 30 years. As some lucky lads go bananas, experts fear a worrying trend as such a sudden evolutionary shift is not the norm. Research on mice further suggests some popular foods, namely Coca-Cola and Pepsi, boost testosterone and inflate the testicles.

Size indeed matters, but, more pressingly, so does function. A pregnant mother’s regular exposure to PFAS leads to genital defects and decreased sperm production in their future sons. These chemicals, along with phthalate plasticizers and paraben preservatives, are thought to interfere with hormones vital to the development of male sexual organs and sperm mobility, potentially leading to infertility later in life.

Ovaries & uterus

Well, this is just bloody great: Cases of irregular menstrual cycles and early puberty, in girls as young as 9 months old, have surged in recent years, and researchers are pointing fingers at household factors. One study linked the phenomenon to the presence of phthalates, parabens and phenols – oh my! – in popular personal care items. Seen in countless soaps, cosmetics and menstrual products marketed to women, these substances have furthermore been tied to endometriosis and endometrial cancer, hormonal dysfunction and infertility.

The whole body

In addition to shaving years off your life by way of heart disease and obesity, snack staples such as Pop-Tarts, Rice Krispies Treats and Cheez-Its are part of the 1,200-some food products that contain tert-butylhydroquinone (TBHQ) and PFAS.

Experts made the bombshell discovery in 2021, also claiming that such compounds, used to extend the shelf life of foods, could alter immune function, leading to increased inflammation and risk of illness.

Earlier this week, experts warned Americans of other commonly used food additives in US products, specifically. Suspected carcinogens such as potassium bromate and titanium dioxide are not considered safe in places such as Europe.

https://nypost.com/2023/02/23/how-modern-life-has-mutated-the-human-body-in-50-years/?utm_medium=browser_notifications&utm_source=pushly&utm_content=All&utm_campaign=2715255

States Can Lead on Lowering Health Care Costs

 While most of the health care debate is focused on fights over expanding federal government healthcare programs, a new Congressional Budget Office report on reducing what insurers pay for hospital physician services offers ideas for how states can reduce health care costs for their citizens by enacting supply side reforms that we already know work.

According to the CBO, one factor keeping insurer costs high is that “markets have become more concentrated than they would be otherwise because of barriers to entry.”  Many of these barriers are imposed at the state level and range from limiting the number and type of providers in a particular area to requiring specific credentials to offer certain services.

What these barriers have in common is that they limit competition and patient access to care. Removing them would promote competition among providers and ultimately reduce costs.

States looking to reduce healthcare costs should focus on these four areas of reform identified by CBO:  eliminating Certificate of Need and scope of practice laws, expanding the use of telehealth, and permitting doctors to work across state lines.

Certificate of Need (CON) laws require government permission before new providers can add or expand healthcare facilities or services in particular geographic area.  In many cases, CON laws essentially confer monopoly status on existing facilities, which restricts patients’ options and keeps costs high.

The federal government enacted a CON law in 1974, but the law’s evident failure resulted in repeal in 1986. However, 35 states and the District of Columbia still have CON laws on their books. Repealing these laws would boost competition and lower costs.

While CON laws limit services, state scope of practice laws limit the ability of healthcare workers to provide care.  Many states do not allow non-physician providers, such as advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants, to practice to the full scope of their training. They must work under the supervision of a physician.

With a physician shortage is looming and 65 million Americans not having sufficient access to a health care provider, scope of practice limitations make no sense. As the CBO report states, eliminating these laws would “reduce prices on average."

Telehealth has improved patient care with its effectiveness and efficiency. Patients can get treatment even in inclement weather and are less likely to cancel or postpone an appointment due to transportation issues. Health care providers can see more patients by minimizing the gap between appointments and without exposing themselves to an infected patient. Telehealth assures privacy and safety that no waiting or exam room can match.

While telehealth cannot always replace and face-to-face visits and is not appropriate for all services, it has improved patient care with its effectiveness and efficiency. Patients can get treatment even in inclement weather and are less likely to cancel or postpone an appointment due to transportation issues. Health care providers can see more patients by minimizing the gap between appointments and without exposing themselves to an infected patient. Telehealth assures privacy and safety that no waiting or exam room can match.

Many states have expanded the used of telehealth, but many only temporarily.  New permanent laws promoting telehealth will give a boost to the industry and allow more people to experience its benefits.  However, to get telehealth’s full benefit, states need the issue cross-state licensing of providers.

Expanding the use of telehealth alone will leave some health care savings on the table. To get the full benefit, states will need to adopt procedures that ensure an uncomplicated process for mutual credentialing of providers between states.

For example, suppose you live in one state but are seeing a specialist in another. While you can see the out-of-state specialist in-person, you could not see that same specialist over the internet from your home. Consulting a specialist should be effortless whether you are two towns or two time zones away.

These reforms should not be controversial. The Covid pandemic saw all 50 states suspend or waive some of these barriers to save lives. For instance, some 23 states temporarily expedited their CON approval processes or waived it.

Medicare’s decision to cover telehealth services prompted states to change their own policies and expand telehealth. And every state eased licensing rules. We all remember those doctors and nurses flooding into New York City to help. Well, New York had to waive licensing requirements to make that happen.

If certain laws and regulations don’t make sense when we’re dealing with a crisis, how do they make sense in normal times?  Lives are at stake across our country every day – even when there is no crisis.

It is notable that these reforms were enacted not only quickly but safely. And although an important step in the right direction, these reforms should be part of a broader effort to dismantle the barriers that prevent patients from getting the care they need at a price they can afford.

It is literally a matter of life and death.

Dr. Marilyn M. Singleton is an anesthesiologist in Redondo Beach, California. She received her medical degree from University of California (San Francisco) School of Medicine and has been in practice for more than 20 years.

https://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2023/02/23/states_can_lead_on_lowering_health_care_costs_111464.html

FDA asks Pfizer to conduct RSV vaccine safety study after 2 contract Guillain-Barre syndrome

 Two adults over 60 developed Guillain-Barre syndrome after receiving Pfizer's respiratory syncytial virus vaccine candidate in a phase 3 trial. Now the FDA is asking the pharmaceutical giant to conduct a safety study.

"Given the temporal association and biological plausibility, FDA agrees with the assessments of the investigators that these events were possibly related to study vaccine," an FDA spokesperson told CNBC.

The control group in the trial that did not receive a vaccine did not have any cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome. However, in a briefing document, Pfizer notes that in one of the two cases, "after discussion with the participant's neurologist, the investigator considered that there is a possibility that the patient's [Guillain-Barre syndrome] was related to blinded study intervention." 

In both cases, the patients' Guillain-Barre syndrome symptoms resolved after three to six months, CNBC reports.

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/fda-asks-pfizer-to-conduct-rsv-vaccine-safety-study-after-2-contract-guillain-barre-syndrome.html

COVID-19 admissions up in 20 states

 Overall, COVID-19 hospitalizations are decreasing nationwide. However, nearly half of states are seeing an increase, according to data tracked by The New York Times. 

The nation's daily average for hospitalizations sat just below 28,000 as of Feb. 23, down 5 percent over the last two weeks. At the same time, hospitalizations are up in 20 states and flat in two. Western states are seeing some of the largest increases, including Montana and Wyoming, where the daily averages for hospitalizations have risen 46 percent and 38 percent in the last 14 days, respectively. 

Three more updates on COVID-19 and flu: 

1. The nation's seven-day average for new COVID-19 admissions was 3,504 for the week ending Feb. 21, down about 5 percent from the previous week's average, according to the CDC.  

2. The national daily average of new COVID-19 cases was nearly 35,000 as of Feb. 23, down 14 percent in the past two weeks. 

3. Meanwhile, flu activity continues to fall nationwide, the CDC's latest FluView report shows. The positivity rate was just 1 percent for the week ending Feb. 18. Since October, influenza A strains have driven the majority of cases. While it's not unusual to see influenza B drive a subsequent uptick, there have been no indicators to suggest that will occur, experts told Becker's. 

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/covid-19-admissions-up-in-20-states-4-respiratory-virus-updates.html

Cities where Ozempic prescriptions have risen the most

 There's a nationwide shortage of diabetes management drug Ozempic, but some cities far outpace the rest when it comes to how many prescriptions of the drug are being written.

Though Ozempic is officially used for treating diabetes, the use of the drug as a weight loss tool has exploded across social media and among celebrity circles over the last year, leading to demand far greater than manufacturer Novo Nordisk anticipated.

According to the FDA, 1 and 2 milligram doses of Ozempic are currently available, but the 0.25 mg and 0.5 mg injectable versions will remain in short supply until mid-March. Wegovy, a nearly identical drug made by Novo Nordisk for weight loss specifically, had faced supply issues last year, which contributed to consumers seeking out Ozempic.

With the ongoing shortage of Ozempic, Robert Gabbay, MD, PhD, chief science and medical officer of the American Diabetes Association, told The Wall Street Journal Feb. 22 that physicians should prioritize prescriptions for diabetes patients.

According to data shared with Becker's by Trilliant Health, the Phoenix metro area has seen the biggest rise in Ozempic prescriptions. CEO Hal Andrews said the rise in prescriptions does not correlate with a similar rise in local diabetes diagnoses, indicating that consumers are likely seeking out the drug for other uses.

The data is from Trilliant Health's national all-claims database, which covers more than 300 million people and 2.5 million providers. It compares Ozempic prescriptions in the first quarter of 2022 to the same period a year prior. The national average rose 72 percent during that time.

Metro areas where Ozempic prescriptions have risen the most:

1. Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale — 158 percent

2. Tupelo, Miss. — 157 percent

3. Decatur, Ala. — 149 percent 

4. Manchester-Nashua, N.H. — 143 percent

5. Tucson, Ariz. — 130 percent

6. Tyler, Texas — 127 percent

7. Denver-Aurora — 122 percent

8. Flint, Mich. — 121 percent 

9. Spokane, Wash. — 118 percent

10. Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor — 117 percent

11. Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, Calif. — 116 percent

12. Huntington, W.Va.-Ashland, Ohio — 116 percent

13. Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, Ark.-Mo. — 115 percent

14. San Antonio-New Braunfels, Texas — 114 percent

15. New Haven-Milford, Conn. — 113 percent

16. Dothan, Ala. — 113 percent

17. Lexington-Fayette County, Ky. — 112 percent

18. Lake Charles, La. — 109 percent

19. Daphne-Fairhope-Foley, Ala. — 109 percent

20. Sioux Falls, S.D. — 109 percent

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/pharmacy/cities-where-ozempic-prescriptions-have-risen-the-most.html

Norovirus outbreaks: Where are you most at-risk?

 Outbreaks of norovirus are currently spiking across the country — and somewhat earlier than in previous years.

Health officials say the timing and volume of these outbreaks isn’t entirely unexpected, considering the newest outbreaks coincide with the easing of pandemic restrictions.

“Prevention measures implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic were likely effective in preventing norovirus outbreaks,” Marisa Lubeck, a health communication specialist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), previously told Nexstar. “As pandemic restrictions have relaxed, the number of norovirus outbreaks has returned to levels similar to pre-pandemic years.”

Nevertheless, illnesses caused by norovirus infection can be concerning, especially during outbreaks involving young children, the elderly, and those with compromised immune systems.

Perhaps more concerning is the fact that long-term health facilities and hospitals are the most common setting for norovirus outbreaks in the United States, and can originate from any number of sources, including residents, workers, visitors or contaminated foods. Between 2009 and 2013, for instance, 62.7% of all outbreaks reported via the CDC’s National Outbreak Reporting System (NORS) had taken place in health care facilities.

The elderly are also believed to be the most at-risk community, as they generally experience longer, more severe illnesses which can sometimes be fatal in rare cases, according to the CDC.

Prevention and timely intervention are especially important in such settings, as there is no current treatment for the infection itself but rather its symptoms. One of the most concerning symptoms — dehydration — is the “most common complication that requires medical care” among patients in long-term care facilities, as noted in a study from researchers with Australian National University and the CDC.

Aside from health care facilities, the most common setting for a norovirus outbreak is a restaurant or catered event. Outbreaks stemming from food-service facilities such as these, the CDC says, had accounted for around 22% of all reported outbreaks between 2009 and 2013.

Infected workers who spread norovirus particles are “frequently the source” of the outbreaks, according to the agency, and can easily contaminate foods through touch. Most instances involve infected food-service employees handling ready-to-eat foods, though it’s possible for workers to contaminate cooked foods, too.

Outbreaks are also somewhat common in childcare facilities and schools, as well as colleges where students may be more at-risk of exposure in dorms or other shared living or studying spaces.

Cruise ships are not common settings for norovirus outbreaks, despite widespread beliefs to the contrary. Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) — an industry association comprised of major cruise lines — has even sought to dispel the misconception that norovirus is a “cruise ship disease,” citing previous CDC reporting that showed ship-based outbreaks accounts for less than 1% of total reported outbreaks in the U.S.

The CDC notes, however, that outbreaks on cruise ships can be “especially challenging to control” because of passengers sharing recreational and dining spaces.

Despite being “challenging to control,” there are far fewer norovirus outbreaks on cruise ships than in long-term care facilities or in restaurant settings, according to the CDC. One such outbreak that garnered significant media attention in 2006 affected around 700 passengers on the Carnival Liberty cruise ship, seen here during a cleaning in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

No matter where the outbreak occurs, sickened individuals and those caring for them (or living with the ill in close quarters) need to practice good hygiene and take precautions, warns Dr. Scott Harris, the state health officer for the Alabama Department of Public Health, who spoke with Nexstar’s WIAT in response to reports of recent rising cases.

Doctors recommend disinfecting shared surfaces and frequent handwashing — especially after using the bathroom or before preparing food — among other common preventative measures. Otherwise, there’s significant risk of spreading the illness to vulnerable groups.

“If you’re in a facility like a hospital or nursing home where you have really vulnerable people, you know you can have, you know some serious effects because of that,” said Dr. Harris.

https://thehill.com/homenews/nexstar_media_wire/3867685-norovirus-outbreaks-where-are-you-most-at-risk/

Yes, hate speech is constitutionally protected

 Author Salman Rushdie, still recovering from the latest assassination attempt, once said freedom of speech must include “the freedom to offend” or “it ceases to exist.” Rushdie has risked his very life to support that principle after being put under a death threat by Iran’s then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989 for allegedly insulting Islam.

Recently, when Secretary of State Antony Blinken responded to the attack on Rushdie, he notably attacked the role of hate speech as one of “the pernicious forces that seek to undermine these rights.” It was a curious spin. Rushdie has fought limitations on speech and was himself accused of a type of hate speech toward Islam. Due to his alleged blasphemy, his accusers declared not just his right to speech but his right to life as forfeit.

The use of Rushdie to further calls to curtail hate speech may be bizarre but it is not surprising. There is a concerted effort by the Biden administration and many Democrats to censor anything deemed hateful on the internet and social media.

That was evident at the start of a recent House hearing on the government’s role in censoring citizens on social media. As one of the witnesses, I was taken aback by the opening statement of the committee’s ranking Democrat, Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-V.I.). Besides opposing an investigation into the role of the FBI and other agencies in such censorship, Plaskett declared that “I hope that [all members] recognize that there is speech that is not constitutionally protected,” and then referenced hate speech as an example.

Hate speech is indeed a scourge in our nation, but it is also protected under our Constitution. Yet many politicians and pundits are using this false constitutional claim to defend potentially unconstitutional actions by the government.

Recently, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who is a lawyer, said that “if you espouse hate … you’re not protected under the First Amendment.” Former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean declared the identical position: “Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment.”

Even some dictionaries now espouse this false premise, defining “hate speech” as “Speech not protected by the First Amendment, because it is intended to foster hatred against individuals or groups based on race, religion, gender, sexual preference, place of national origin, or other improper classification.”

It is not an argument that improves with repetition. Yet, there have been calls to ban hate speech for years. Even former journalist and Obama State Department official Richard Stengel has insisted that while “the First Amendment protects the ‘thought that we hate’ … it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another. In an age when everyone has a megaphone, that seems like a design flaw.”

Actually, It is not a design flaw but the very essence of the Framers’ design.

The First Amendment does not distinguish between types of speech, clearly stating: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

While the Supreme Court has allowed limited exceptions, it does not bestow on the government the open right to strip protection of speech because it is deemed “hateful.” Indeed, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, a 1969 case involving “violent speech,” the court struck down an Ohio law prohibiting public speech that was deemed as promoting illegal conduct. It supported the right of the Ku Klux Klan to speak out, even though it is a hateful organization. Likewise, in RAV v. City of St. Paul in 2011, it struck down a ban on any symbol that “arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.” In Snyder v. Phelps, also in 2011, the court said the hateful protests of Westboro Baptist Church were protected.

Courts have long held the line against efforts to ban hate speech, as one did in 1995 by striking down Stanford’s hate-speech ban. Courts have long rejected such labels as excuses for sanctioning speech. In 1928, a man was convicted for blasphemy in Little Rock, Ark., after putting a poster in a shop window reading “Evolution is true.” Many also thought that message was harmful.

More recently, a federal court enjoined a New York effort to ban “hateful conduct” on social media. In Volokh v. James, U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter Jr. granted a preliminary injunction on the basis that “the Hateful Conduct Law” is blatantly unconstitutional, which it most certainly is. The law defined “hateful conduct” as “the use of a social media network to vilify, humiliate, or incite violence against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression” [N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 394-ccc(1)(a)].

He wrote that “Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’”

The work of conscientious judges like Carter ordinarily blunts the impact of false constitutional claims, even when widely held. But this myth is now being used to justify a wide array of censorship. It is the very type of “disinformation” that many Democrats love to cite as the basis for silencing others.

Social media companies have used “hate speech” to justify censorship of opposing views. LinkedIn reportedly has added its company name to this ignoble effort, according to an Air Force veteran whose account was disabled after criticizing calls for loan forgiveness. The site reportedly declared that opposing the Democratic plan for loan forgiveness is “hate speech.” TikTok labeled as hate speech a video supporting Kyle Rittenhouse, acquitted of killing protesters in Kenosha, Wis., in 2020. The video discussed the effort by Arizona State University students to ban Rittenhouse from campus.

The hate-speech designation is often used to justify punishing or silencing opposing views. When Michigan football head coach Jim Harbaugh recently made a pro-life comment, it was declared hate speech by some, and there were calls for his termination. By labeling some views as “hateful,” social media companies claim full license to silence opposing views.

In a chilling statement before a recent House hearing, former Twitter executive Anika Collier Navaroli was asked about the standard of censorship by Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) and explained that Twitter tries not to just balance “free speech versus safety.” Rather, it would ask “free speech for whom and public safety for whom. So whose free expression are we protecting at the expense of whose safety and whose safety are we willing to allow to go the winds so that people can speak freely.” Rep. Stansbury responded: “Exactly.”

So, by declaring speech harmful or hateful, these companies can make “nuanced” choices as to who should be allowed to speak.

The repetition of such false claims on hate speech being unprotected has had its impact; polls show almost half of college students believe hate speech is not constitutionally protected. But it is particularly chilling for one of the nation’s most powerful politicians, sworn to “support and defend the Constitution,” to show either a lack of knowledge or lack of fealty to the First Amendment.

Hating hate speech is no vice — but it is also no license for censorship.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. 

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3873943-yes-hate-speech-is-constitutionally-protected/