In a perfect example of nanny state thinking at work, Hillary Clinton said that making the internet a safer place for users and protecting us from harm requires “total control” by those in power. claims.
Clinton is not alone in her aversion to unregulated free speech online.
A bipartisan chorus, including presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, has long advocated for weakening or repealing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which essentially acts as a bulwark against online censorship. .
This is a complex legal issue involving debates about indemnity, liability, net neutrality, and whether an Internet site is a publisher with editorial responsibility for the content posted on its site, but ultimately However, it all comes down to a tug-of-war over the scope of censorship. (Corporations and Government) begins and free speech ends.
Elizabeth Nolan Brown wrote in Reason magazine: “What both the right and left attacks on this provision have in common is that they are happy to use any resonant excuse: saving children, ending prejudice, preventing terrorism, misogyny, religious intolerance, etc. While they may advocate these in partisan terms to suit their respective positions, their objectives are essentially the same. .”
In other words, the government will use any excuse to suppress dissent and control the narrative.
The Internet may be the final frontier for free speech, especially politically incorrect speech and disinformation, and the limits of so-called egalitarian commitments to the broad principles of the First Amendment. It will be tested.
The internet is full of falsehoods and lies, misdirection and misinformation, and conspiracy theories.
This is to be expected, and the response should be more speech, not less.
As Justice Brandeis wrote nearly a century ago, “If there is time to expose falsehoods and errors through discussion, and to avoid evil in the course of education, the remedy to be applied is not to enforce silence. , speak out more.”
However, for governments, these forms of “disinformation” are equivalent to terrorism, drugs, violence, and disease, and are social evils so threatening that “we the people” It is necessary to give up even a small amount of freedom. safety.
Of course, it never works out that way.
The war on terrorism, the war on drugs, the fight against illegal immigration, the fight against COVID-19. All of these programs began as legitimate responses to pressing concerns, but eventually became weapons of compliance and control in the hands of governments.
Indeed, in the face of the government's own authoritarian power grabs, cover-ups, and conspiracies, the relatively free internet may be our only hope for speaking truth to power.
The right to criticize the government and speak out against its wrongdoings is a classic freedom.
Disinformation is not the problem. Concealment and censorship by the government is a problem.
Unfortunately, governments have become increasingly intolerant of speech that challenges authority, exposes corruption, exposes lies, and encourages citizens to resist the government's many injustices. Every day in this country, people who dare to speak truth to power are censored, silenced, or fired.
Today, there are all sorts of labels attached to so-called “unacceptable” speech, but the real message being conveyed by those in power is that what they say is unpopular, controversial, or Or that Americans have no right to express their opinions, especially when they are critical. It is inconsistent with what the government deems acceptable.
The problem arises when we place the power to decide who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, courts, and police.
Remember, this is the same government that uses the words “anti-government,” “extremist,” and “terrorist” interchangeably.
It uses automated eyes and ears, social media, behavioral detection software, and citizen spies to perform threat assessments, behavioral detection alerts, flagged “words,” and “suspicious” activity reports on sticky spiders. This is the same government that is spreading its nest. Identify potential threats.
It shares with fusion centers and law enforcement a list of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations, and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and label someone a potential enemy of the state. It is the same government that is increasing it.
For example, if you agree to your constitutional rights (i.e., to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own weapons, and If you believe in exercising your right to request a warrant (right to request a warrant), are interrogated or searched, or engage in other activities that are considered anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic, or sovereign, you are may top the terrorist watch list.
So no matter how well-intentioned politicians may appear to be infringing on our rights, good plans can easily be used for malicious purposes.
Even the most well-intentioned government laws and programs can be distorted, corrupted, and used to further illegitimate ends once interests and power are in play. For example, mass surveillance technologies that were so necessary to combat the spread of COVID-19 are now used to suppress dissent, persecute activists, harass marginalized communities, and steal people's health information. Used to tie into other surveillance and law enforcement tools.
We are rapidly moving down a slippery slope towards an authoritarian society where only opinions, ideas and speech sanctioned by the government and its corporate groups are expressed.
This is how it begins.
Of course, all this is because dissent is criminalized, pathologised, dissenting voices are censored, silenced, labeled as sociopaths, labeled dangerous or extremist, or ostracized. It's part of a larger trend in American governance: displacement.
As my book Battlefield America: The War Against the American People and its fictional work The Eric Blair Diaries make clear, this is how you conquer your people.
The continued silence in the face of state-backed oppression, terrorism, brutality, and injustice is deafening.
About John and Nisha Whitehead:
Constitutional lawyer and author John W. Whitehead is the founder and director of the Rutherford Institute. His most recent books, The Erik Blair Diaries and Battlefield America: The War on the American People, are available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be reached at (email protected). Nisha Whitehead is Executive Director of the Rutherford Institute. Information about the Rutherford Institute can be found at www.rutherford.org.
