NOTE: This piece first appeared on FLGulfNews.com.
By Rick LaRivière with Richard Luthmann and Michael Thunder Phillips
“Thunder” Family Court Writer Caught in the Censorship Crosshairs
Michael “Thunder” Phillips built a following on Medium and elsewhere by writing hard-hitting investigative journalism. His fearless reporting on family court corruption exposes judicial misconduct, court-appointed abuse enablers, and systemic failures that devastate vulnerable parents and children.
Phillips’ investigative work often draws on firsthand whistleblower accounts and public records — the kind of journalism that gets results and ruffles powerful feathers.
But in July 2025, Medium suspended his account without warning — again.
In a series of emails, Phillips begged for answers. He said he hadn’t violated any rules. He wasn’t doing affiliate marketing or trying to make money dishonestly. And this wasn’t a “mistake,” like earlier “deplatforming.”
Michael “Thunder” Phillips just wants to write the truth and inform his audience.
Medium’s Trust & Safety team responded with boilerplate: he had violated policies against “targeted harassment or shaming,” but refused to say which article or which person triggered the ban.
Phillips pushed back, calling the suspension vague and unjust. He noted that his reporting involved public figures — judges, attorneys, officials — based on verified documents and firsthand sources.
He asked Medium to identify any actual violations so he could fix them.
They didn’t.
Instead, they demanded he remove all personally identifying information — names, workplaces, communications — or stay banned.
“I have not promoted any hate on anyone,” Phillips wrote. “It is investigative reporting about the truth.”
That didn’t matter. His account stays suspended.
Substack’s Free Speech Claims Fall Apart
Substack once pitched itself as the last bastion of free speech. But when independent journalist Richard Luthmann posted articles exposing political corruption, Substack shut him down.
Luthmann’s hard-hitting investigative reporting is known for exposing political corruption, court abuses, and weaponized censorship. He pulls no punches, targeting judges, bureaucrats, and media operatives who hide behind institutions while violating civil liberties and suppressing dissent.
A steadfast Trump supporter since the "golden escalator," Luthmann prolifically details the New American Golden Age.
"There is nothing that will deter me in my belief that God sent President Trump to Save America. Not prison, not death," Luthmann said. "I think I've more than proved that."
Substack came with the long knives and no warning. They shut down his publication, This is For Real., on the morning after June’s NYC Mayoral Primary. He was about to publish news and commentary eulogizing Andrew Cuomo’s political career and detailing the choice voters had between Law and Order and a “Dead Red Commie” in Zohran Mandami.
Substack made sure it didn’t happen.
No detailed explanation. Just a ban. The official reason? “Unspecified violations” — a line as empty as it is common.
Luthmann wasn’t surprised. He had already warned that Substack was quietly blacklisting conservative writers.
In his own reporting, he accused Substack CEO Chris Best of hypocrisy. Best had claimed Substack was a “place for all viewpoints,” but the platform had begun targeting “WrongThink” and bowing to public pressure.
Luthmann believes he was the victim of a coordinated Woke complaint campaign.
“Cancel culture just gamified content moderation,” he said. “The progressive lunatics like Heather Cox Richardson and Scott Dworkin have taken over. The enemy through the gates and feasting in Substack’s Great Hall.”
One report becomes five. Five reports become a ban. Substack caves to the mob, not its mission.
Luthmann says Substack is following suit after other, larger platforms, like YouTube, have set the censorship tone. He is waging his own high-stakes battle against YouTube’s content moderation, which he says may very well be destroying his mental health.
He recently slammed YouTube CEO Neal Mohan for what he called “censorship smacking of treason,” accusing the platform of silencing his investigative reporting on political corruption. Luthmann claims YouTube deleted his videos without notice, cutting off his reach and punishing truth-telling that challenges the “woke mob” and the platform’s vague safety rules.
His call to action? Replatform all the banned journalists, reporters, and content creators.
“Substack silences journalist, following the YouTube model. Who’s next? Everyone.”
X Marks the Ban: The John Seaman Story
John Seaman is a decorated former Supervisory Special Agent with the DEA. He writes penetrating exposés on deep-state influence and election interference, scrutinizing media and government collusion during multiple presidential elections.
He helped design anti-corruption programs for the Department of Justice.
But that didn’t protect him from X under Linda Yaccarino.
After publishing an exposé on the Russian Hoax Conspiracy — a scathing takedown of media-government collusion during the Trump era — Seaman was permanently deplatformed.
His reporting alleged that the intelligence community, media outlets, and political insiders knowingly misled the American public.
It’s the kind of journalism that used to win Pulitzers.
Now it gets you banned.
Luthmann, who was also booted from X, said it best: “They don’t censor lies. They censor truth that makes their media masters uncomfortable.”
Free Speech Dies in “Trust & Safety”
The real enemy isn’t just censorship. It’s the lack of due process. None of these journalists were given specifics—just vague allegations.
No one told Phillips which article was the problem. Luthmann was never presented with a list of the “Policies and Procedures” he broke. No one told Seaman who he offended and how.
It’s a pattern. The weapon is always the same: “Trust & Safety” departments with no transparency and no accountability.
According to Pew Research, 83% of Americans believe social media companies censor political viewpoints they find objectionable.
Among Republicans, 93% think it’s happening, and 71% say Big Tech favors liberal views over conservative ones.
Even Democrats are starting to see the problem. In 2020, just 63% of Democrats said tech companies had too much political power. By 2024, that number had jumped to 74%.
The message is clear: Big Tech Censorship is Real, and it’s Getting Worse.
Musk’s Free Speech Test: Yaccarino Out, Now What?
Linda Yaccarino resigned as CEO of X last week. Officially, the split was mutual. But the timing speaks volumes.
A former NBCUniversal executive, Yaccarino was brought in to clean up the mess Elon Musk inherited in the Twitter acquisition.
Under Jack Dorsey, Twitter became infamous for censorship, banning accounts for political speech under vague “misinformation” and “harm” policies. The platform deplatformed a sitting U.S. president, suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story, and coordinated with government agencies to silence dissenting views.
Elon Musk inherited a system built on opaque moderation, political bias, and institutional pressure to censor the truth. The world’s richest man tasked her to fix these things.
Instead, she bowed to the Big Tech/Social Media Industrial Complex and oversaw a crackdown on speech.
Under her watch, thousands upon thousands of accounts were banned for “community standards” violations — many without explanation.
She tried to keep advertisers happy while balancing Musk’s promises of free speech.
She failed.
Major brands like Disney and Apple pulled ad dollars after Musk’s “controversial” posts on his “free speech platform.”
Yaccarino became the fall girl, maybe by design. Some believe she never stopped serving her mass media oligarch masters.
Now, with her gone, Musk has a choice. Will he restore banned accounts and recommit to open debate?
Or will X remain a platform that punishes truth-tellers?
Substack’s Chris Best faces the same question. Will he defend writers like Luthmann, or sell out his founding principles for the likes of the INGSOC-approved Heather Cox Richardson and Scott Dworkin?
Musk’s Free Speech Test: The Final Line for Big Tech Oligarchs
This moment is a test.
Michael Phillips was silenced for doing journalism. Richard Luthmann was banned for telling uncomfortable truths. John Seaman was erased for challenging powerful narratives.
All three were white, conservative, and fact-based. Vague, secretive moderation teams crushed all three.
None of them has answers. And they are not alone.
Elon Musk calls himself a “free speech absolutist.” Chris Best sells Substack as the home for independent voices.
But talk is cheap. Now’s the time for action.
Replatform the journalists. End the shadowbans. Fire the “Trust & Safety” censors.
Let the people decide what to read – a novel concept.
Because in three months, we’ll have our litmus test. We’ll know whether certain Big Tech oligarchs really stand for free speech, or whether Musk’s “Free Speech brand” – and his America Party – are both just that – marketing gimmicks.
Share this post