🚨 Substack Just Silenced a Journalist. Who’s Next?
In a world where Big Tech censors with the flick of an algorithm, where “free speech” platforms start sounding more like Silicon Valley overlords than champions of liberty, one question rings louder every day:
Who is really in charge of what the American people are allowed to read?
This week, Substack—the platform that promised to give power back to independent writers—suspended journalist Richard Luthmann, editor-in-chief of FLGulf.news, NYNewsPress.com, and TheFamilyCourtCircus.com. His only crime? Publishing controversial political journalism, exposing corruption, and speaking freely.
Substack once said: “We believe that writers, bloggers, thinkers, and creatives of every background should be able to pursue their curiosity, generating income directly from their own audiences and on their own terms.”
That statement now reads like a bad joke.
Shadowbanned, Silenced, and De-Platformed
According to Luthmann, the platform shadowbanned his readers months ago. Then, just one day after the NYC primary election—where his publication covered key political actors—his ability to publish was revoked.
He didn’t violate any policies. He didn’t spam users. He didn’t incite violence. He simply wrote things powerful people didn’t like.
Luthmann believes his suspension came after a coordinated effort by left-leaning internet personalities—Danesh Noshirvan and Jeremy Hales—who mobilized online mobs and weaponized Substack’s automated complaint system.
In other words, cancel culture just gamified content moderation.
Freedom of the Press Is Not Optional
This is no longer just a glitch or misunderstanding. This is a direct assault on press freedom, made worse by the cowardly silence of the very platform that claims to protect writers.
Let’s be crystal clear:
🔹 Freedom of the press doesn’t apply only to corporate media with six-figure sponsors.
🔹 Freedom of speech is not reserved for talking heads who parrot establishment lines.
🔹 It’s meant for all of us—especially those willing to publish uncomfortable truths.
When platforms like Substack fold to mob outrage and silence independent journalists, they are not protecting community safety. They are choosing political safety over constitutional principle.
Journalism Shouldn’t Require an Ideological Permission Slip
Richard Luthmann isn’t just some loudmouth with a keyboard. He’s a federal litigant, involved in cases exposing corruption, judicial misconduct, and government abuse. That alone makes him a threat to the establishment’s comfort.
Now, after documenting how family courts, local government, and political machines operate in secrecy and often outside the law, he’s been digitally gagged.
Where are the defenders of democracy now?
Where are the liberal free speech absolutists who rallied behind the New York Times and shouted “journalism is not a crime”?
Silent.
Apparently, the First Amendment is only worth defending when it protects voices they agree with.
Time for Congress to Wake Up
We need to stop pretending this is about one man or one platform. It’s not. It’s about the infrastructure of free thought in America.
Congress must investigate whether platforms like Substack are:
Being infiltrated by coordinated cancel campaigns;
Silencing federal litigants in active court battles;
Failing to provide due process for account suspensions;
Engaging in false and deceptive trade practices by claiming to be free speech zones.
We also need to start asking serious questions about whether Section 230 protections should apply to platforms that behave like publishers—not neutral forums.
The Bottom Line
When the press is silenced, we all lose. And when so-called “free speech” platforms act like gatekeepers for political narratives, they’ve abandoned their reason for existing.
Richard Luthmann may be the first journalist Substack silences. He won’t be the last.
If we don’t protect freedom of speech and press now—especially for those we disagree with—we’ll soon find ourselves with no one left to protect us when our turn comes.
Related Reading