Prince Harry is not the sharpest tool in the shed, and the royal is playing a dangerous game as he involves himself in the Aspen Institute Commission. While portrayed as an organization aimed at stamping out what it considers “misinformation,” in reality it is a group of elites dedicated to censoring freedom of speech and free expression in media and social media to replace it mostly with progressive and liberal propaganda.

This is the information and media age, where the answer to nearly any question is available via a pocket supercomputer. But as this access to information grows, so does the desire by some people to control what information we see and don’t see.

The Aspen Institute Commission on Information Disorder states that it “aims to identify and prioritize the most critical sources and causes of information disorder and deliver a set of short-term actions and longer-term goals to help government, the private sector, and civil society respond to this modern-day crisis of faith in key institutions.”

But who is determining this “misinformation?” And who will be the watchdog making sure that this effort to protect the public from bad information doesn’t become censorship?

Why Prince Harry, that’s who.

The man who allegedly cheated in order to graduate high school is now part of the Aspen Institute, an organization of elites dedicated to censoring the information we see online because society is too stupid without the help of the elite.

In a misguided attempt to strike back at those critical of his wife, Meghan Markle, and himself, Prince Harry has gleefully signed on to this George Soros funded effort to infringe on free speech in social media and in the media in general. 

As The New York Post put it: “And then there is commission member Prince Harry, an expat British ex-royal with few qualifications but a lifetime of evidence of his own questionable judgment (such as dressing up as a Nazi and, more recently, whining to Oprah about the family that funds his lavish lifestyle).” 

Prince Harry is already showing his contempt for the freedom of expression enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, which he referred to the First Amendment in one interview as “bonkers.”

So, how is this nincompoop remotely qualified to determine what we are allowed to read, watch and listen to online? Is this 1522 or almost 2022?

But the media and certain elites have used Donald Trump conspiracies, the pandemic and the January 6 riots last year to try and manipulate the public into believing that there is good and bad information, and only those special select few are qualified to tell us. You know, like a man who allegedly cheated on his high school art project to pass high school.

For example, YouTube bans what it considers “misinformation” about the vaccines, even if it someone simply questioning the potential long-term effects.

The company stated, “We’ve steadily seen false claims about the coronavirus vaccines spill over into misinformation about vaccines in general, and we’re now at a point where it’s more important than ever to expand the work we started with COVID-19 to other vaccines.”

In another example, The New York Post was temporarily banned from Twitter for posting a report about the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop, which was filled with compromising material about the son of a then presidential candidate. If the media establishment had a laptop belonging to Donald Trump Jr., ever file and keystroke on that computer would have been dissected endlessly on MSNBC looking for evidence of a Russian hoax. 

Over the years, the media has increasingly shown that it can’t be trusted to remain unbiased and trustworthy, so how is it supposed to make decisions about public information?

The answer is that it can’t.  

A free society can’t be free if people can’t question those in power, whether that’s politicians, journalists, medical doctors or even exiled former royals. 

Prince Harry is probably too dumb to understand that concept.  

But of course, if you disagree, feel free to do your own investigation and come to your own conclusions about the Aspen Institute Commission and their objectives.