The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states Congress can make no law to abridge (i.e. limit, censor) speech.
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.
We have the right to speak our minds, whether we speak misinformation, disinformation, or the absolute truth, whether our notions are convenient or inconvenient, whether we are polite or not, whether we are politically correct or not. Our government, on the other hand, lacks the authority to abridge speech; yet, it pretends there is a higher principle of protecting the people from dangerous speech. Public figures advocating this change are inexorably altering the public’s understanding of this fundamental truth.
The Problem Defined
Consider the value of the First Amendment as was debated 240 years ago. Ask yourself: is there a mortal authority which knows truth, one that should ultimately decide truth for you and others? Even if such an authority exists (or simply comes close), do you trust that authority to act for the benefit of all? We often do not even trust our loved ones to make many decisions for us. Churches and religious institutions had great authority over lives many centuries ago and they too sometimes abused this power. Royalty had such power as well, and we fought a revolution to free ourselves from such tyrants.
Today, religious institutions, kings, and queens lack the power to compel us to do what we ought, or what they prefer. Instead, governments now have the biggest guns; they have far more power than any individual or organization extant. Do we believe an enlightened government today will protect us from dangerous speech? What will that government do with that authority in the future? What has government already done with its increasingly broad power?
Too many believe government is a disinterested party seeking good for all rather than what is best for itself and the individuals who comprise it. We trust the police and our military to protect us; we trust teachers to do what is best for kids; we trust our public health officials to warn us of dangers. Yes, of course. Many dedicated and conscientious people do these functions extremely well and with the public’s interest in mind, but too often the system goes awry: law enforcement sometimes protect its bosses rather than us; judges are influenced by political leanings instead of the law; certain political figures are excused while others are not; teachers decide they know better than parents regarding what’s best for “their” kids; public health officials lie to protect themselves or corporate interests, and then declare an emergency to justify their actions and hide their intent. Yes, we have problems with government, the supposedly disinterested party. Why give it more power, power it was never intended to possess?
Too many make excuses when government works in their favor. However, consider what happens when the rabbit gets the gun. The other side might use the power your side has accrued for government. This is why the battle for political control today is so fierce. This is a problem for us all: Left, Right, or otherwise.
Why do we curse the DMV and IRS, yet trust our political leaders? Many believe their own elected representatives to be the most competent, honest, public servants when they are generally no better than the rest of the corrupt lot. Each of us knows much about a few particular things, but more often than not we simply have opinions, often uninformed ones. Government is filled with folks just like us. Why should these folks use a title to intrude far beyond their areas of competency: to decide what kinds of gas cans we may purchase, how our toilets should operate, how our hair stylists should run their businesses, or how far apart from each other we should stand during a pandemic? Let them monitor speech as well? No. Limit their power and they will be better public servants.
As I said in a recent post, collectively, government (and that includes the propagandist, one-channel media), acts as if it were a religious institution, protecting the faith of its Leftist adherents. They have learned controlling speech (and regulating our lives) can be used to their advantage. They have convinced too many they can be fully trusted with this power. We need people with authority, but we also need to limit their power and their scope.
The People are Sovereign: Take Back the Power
The First Amendment essentially recognizes individuals, businesses, media, basically, anyone but the government, as arbiters of truth. Madison and Jefferson, strong proponents of the Constitution, understood the dangers of unchecked government power, even a government which was exponentially so much smaller than it is today.
Government size and power has exploded in recent years. In the 1950s, Washington was a still sleepy town; streetcars transported people and train tracks ran through Pennsylvania Avenue. Eighty years later, government itself is the locomotive which dominates the city and its environs throughout Virginia and Maryland (and far beyond). The power to regulate speech should not be given to a government with far too much power already; yet, they clearly seek it. We were forewarned.
However, the argument for regulating speech is not without merit. Leftists are absolutely correct regarding the dangers of free speech. We individuals make countless mistakes; we make outrageous claims and dangerous statements; we propose terrible laws; we tell untruths, deliberate lies, and worse. The dangers are certainly real, so how do we mitigate this bad behavior? How do we restrain our human nature? The Left believes in the direct approach: government is the instrument to control our worst tendencies. However, we knew of the dangers of free speech thousands of years ago. Self-control, the indirect approach, works better.
Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. 5 Likewise, the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. 6 The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one’s life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.
7 All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and sea creatures are being tamed and have been tamed by mankind, 8 but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. James 3:4-7
The Bible clearly describes the harm from speech. However, restriction of speech creates more problems than any speech itself. The one engaged in restricting speech should be restricted itself (“tied down with chains”, per Jefferson). We can limit the most egregious excesses of human nature (e.g. murder, rape, stealing, etc.), but we cannot effectively control basic aspects of life such as speech and association. Otherwise, we unleash the Kraken.
What People Think Today
Do folks today actually doubt the importance of free speech? On the surface, polls indicate free speech still matters to almost all. Per a 2020 poll, 91% say it is extremely or very important; 7% say it is moderately important. Only 2% don’t care much.
free-expression-in-america-post-2020
Yet, this same poll also reveals some cracks in the defense of free speech. First, there are big differences between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats countenance limitations on free speech to “prevent violence”, “limit misinformation”, or “protect group rights” :
As a group, Democrats are more likely than Republicans or independents to report having felt either uncomfortable or unsafe because of comments other people have made about their identity or political beliefs. White Democrats are almost as likely as Black Americans to report feeling uncomfortable or unsafe because of others’ speech.
This is a paradox, however. How can people ever feel comfortable or understand another perspective if the discussion is not allowed and certain points of view are censored? You assure your own views are always confirmed and your side wins. However, truth, not winning, should be the goal. The pursuit of truth should not hindered. The incessant lies from our politicians and media who play the race card to garner votes (as I have documented in countless prior posts) sow doubts for White Democrats and Black Americans.
This trend of countenancing limits on free speech is more accelerated among our youth. We must take back education or the trend will become more pronounced as time progresses. College campuses are supposed to be bastions for truth, learning, and free speech, yet students today do not tolerant speech they disagree with. Most students, it appears, prefer speakers with objectionable views be banned from speaking. This view is common among all party affiliations. For instance:
shock-poll-most-students-oppose-allowing-campus-speakers-on-controversial-topics
- 71% do not want to hear any but the prevailing view that transgenderism is completely normal and should never be treated as a mental illness.
- 64% would oppose a speaker who favors banning abortions.
- Half would oppose a speaker promoting U.S. military support for Israel.
The numbers are more stark for more unpopular notions. For example, 85% oppose allowing a speaker who promotes: “Some racial groups are less intelligent than others”. Yes, of course, such views are ridiculous. However, why not hear the speaker, or better yet, let the speaker be ignored? Is there a worse treatment than the cold shoulder? Why deny their free speech rights when censoring them risks your own free speech rights in the future?
Forty years ago, Nazis proposed a march in Skokie, Illinois. The ACLU defended their right to march. In the end, there were more counter-protestors than actual Nazis. The Nazis were put to shame and forced to face reality: their movement was fringe and their ideas extremely unpopular what-is-freedom. This is the more effective strategy.
Furthermore, why shouldn’t students debate issues like those above? I think transgenderism is very often (if not always) a mental illness, abortions are murder, and the U.S. should support Israel, the one true democracy in a sea of autocratic Middle Eastern states. My views are not fringe; they are held by large swaths of Americans, yet colleges limit the debate because too much speech threatens their own hegemony over determining acceptable thought. If ideas are bad, let them be heard and that fact will become more apparent to all.
I understand the inclination to prevent Nazis from marching, but stop them and the window of what is unacceptable expands until it arrives at the ridiculousness of today. As I noted previously:
Ben Shapiro, noted conservative, created a similar controversy by speaking at the very liberal University of California-Berkley (UCB). Shapiro is a Harvard educated lawyer who in his early thirties started his own media outlet, Daily Wire. He is thoughtful, well-spoken, fair-minded, and anything but a bomb throwing nut case, a far cry from the Skokie Nazis of forty years ago.
His messages are far more tolerant and far more mainstream than the Skokie Nazis, yet his political opponents put him in Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables”. They call him a fascist, alt-right, and a Nazi, without regard to the fact that he is an Orthodox Jew and a target of these groups himself. They label him because they don’t like his message. His message offends them. His message competes with their own. They would rather shut down his message than have their own ideas go head-to-head with his.
Consider the possibility your opinion might not be entirely correct. Your view could change, and often does over time. Your view of what others think might not reflect what they actually believe either. Why do college students deem it risky to hear the opposing view if it can be easily countered? Do they need to be protected because they are so vulnerable or unintelligent?
Last week, I noted the movie Sound of Freedom had nothing to do with Q’Anon; the movie does not attack Leftist policies, governments, individuals, or beliefs, yet that is precisely what Leftist publication after publication says (sound-of-freedom-what-controversy?). Their argument is necessary to gain support for their cause, support built through lies.
They call Florida’s education bill the “don’t say gay” bill. This is a total lie. They now say Florida teaches kids that slavery was good for the enslaved Black people . Nobody said any such thing (Educators behind Florida’s African-American History Standards Push Back | National Review). The lies persist, yet people believe them, and those spreading them tell us we need protection from dangerous speech. Create the problem, blame it on others, and then propose a solution to increase your own power. We will let them speak their lies. We will not censor as they do, but we will expose them with cogent arguments.
Again, it is up to you, not any politician, media figure, or faceless government agency to be the arbiter of truth. Seek input for your opinions from those you trust, and be sure they are trustworthy. However, in the end the paradigm fails if we out-source this responsibility.
How Do We Fight This?
Lies abound, people are unaware of history, including the terrible history of censored speech, and people would shelve free speech in some instances to achieve short-term goals. Can we possibly win in this environment? Well, we just did. A Louisiana court ruling affirmed free speech and admonished the government for its (illegal) actions to limit speech.
The following article describes what happens and raises some of the Left’s objections to the ruling.
An order by a federal judge in Louisiana has ignited a high-stakes legal battle over how the government is allowed to interact with social media platforms, raising broad questions about whether — and how — officials can fight what they deem misinformation on health or other matters.
The lawsuit alleges that government officials used the possibility of favorable or unfavorable regulatory action to coerce social media platforms to squelch what the administration considered misinformation on a variety of topics, including COVID-19 vaccines, President Joe Biden’s son Hunter, and election integrity.
The government and government officials can present their points of view, but they cannot control the narrative by limiting discussion on these topics. This should not be deemed controversial in any way.
U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, a conservative nominated to the federal bench by former President Donald Trump, chose Independence Day to issue an injunction blocking multiple government agencies and administration officials. In his words, they are forbidden to meet with or contact social media companies for the purpose of “encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”
Who cares who appointed the judge? President Trump appointed David Weiss, the attorney general who may have held up an investigation of Hunter and Joe Biden. If the Trump appointee does what the Left wants, he is praised. If the appointee does something else, he is biased. Our system relies on people doing right no matter who put them in their position.
Doughty’s order blocks the administration from taking such actions pending further arguments in his court in a lawsuit filed by Republican attorneys general in Missouri and Louisiana.
The injunction — and Doughty’s accompanying reasons saying the administration “seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’” — were hailed by conservatives as a victory for free speech and a blow to censorship.
Yes, this is the point. Censorship is bad. This decision is good for everyone, although many fail to recognize the benefits.
Legal experts, however, expressed surprise at the breadth of the order, and questioned whether it puts too many limits on a presidential administration.
“When we were in the midst of the pandemic, but even now, the government has significantly important public health expertise,” James Speta, a law professor and expert on internet regulation at Northwestern University, said Wednesday. “The scope of the injunction limits the ability of the government to share public health expertise.”
No. The government mishandled public health and tried to create a monopoly on information. Government’s ability to share information is not limited by this decision; it just cannot restrict information shared by others who disagree with them. They got caught. Further, government is not always right. In fact, it is often wrong.
Disinformation researchers and social media watchdogs said the ruling could make social media companies less accountable to label and remove election falsehoods.
“As the U.S. gears up for the biggest election year the internet age has seen, we should be finding methods to better coordinate between governments and social media companies to increase the integrity of election news and information,” said Nora Benavidez, senior counsel of the digital rights advocacy group Free Press.
Alternatively, this decision could limit government’s influence over social media and their reflexive removal of actual truths or common opinions about an election. This is crux of the problem. This is why the government lost in court.
Justin Levitt, a law professor and constitutional law expert who is a former policy adviser to the Biden administration, said the order is unclear as to whether an official could even speak publicly to criticize misinformation on a social media platform.
Yes, speak publicly and openly. Do not hide in the shadows. Do not prevent others from speaking.
Where Do We Go From Here?
The Supreme Court has not weighed in yet. This case seems a good candidate for them. The debate started following the Alien and Seditions Act passed in 1798, the first attack on free speech hundreds of years ago. It continues to this day. Just this week, Representative Jim Jordan, released the Facebook Files in which he made the following claim:
documents include an April 2021 email from an anonymous Facebook employee to Zuckerberg and former Meta COO Sheryl Sandberg, noting the platform faced “continued pressure from external stakeholders, including the White House and the press” to take down “discouraging” content on the Covid-19 vaccine—the email, which seeks guidance on the measure, does not indicate whether Meta bowed to the alleged external pressure.
The suppression of COVID-19 data was an issue in the lawsuit as well. While this revelation is not fully discussed or adjudicated yet, the action further highlights the cultural change; the acceptance of a new logic regarding censorship is pervasive. Many defend the interference believing it necessary because of current circumstances. President Adams believed that more than 200 years ago; he was wrong then and they are wrong today.
The principle remains: government should promote free speech, not limit it. We give power to our government because we do not wish to live in an anarchy, yet our Constitution limits government power because we want to avoid tyrants. Fight back, stand for truth, and we will prevail over today’s would be tyrants.
Seek the Truth 
Go fuck yourself psychos
LikeLike
Not an enlightening comment. Can we have a real conversation?
LikeLike