OPINION:
The fires of reasoned and responsible debate have a way of refining the precious metals with which we forge a democratic republic. And free speech is at the heart of the debate surrounding the TikTok ban in the United States.
Proponents of the Deterring America’s Technology Adversaries (DATA) Act argue its necessity for national security given that TikTok is owned and controlled by ByteDance, a Chinese company with the power and potential to manipulate Americans’ personal data on behalf of the Chinese government. Critics of the DATA Act argue that while the security concerns are real, the ban goes too far and infringes upon Americans’ First Amendment rights to free speech.
The fire of the TikTok ban debate — indeed the very fact that we’re having the debate — can help refine our understanding of two particular precious metals, metals whose molecules bond in the Judeo-Christian worldview.
Subscribe to have The Washington Times’ Higher Ground delivered to your inbox every Sunday.
The right to free speech is no mere legal construct. Its concreteness comes from the understanding that such a right is inalienable — no individual or group of individuals, like a government, can take it away. The inalienability of such a right means that it is bestowed neither by individuals nor government, but by an authority that transcends that of humanity. While not a legal document, the Declaration of Independence, the ideas of which form the backbone of the Constitution, regards inalienable rights as endowments to humanity by our Creator.
“Endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.”
SEE ALSO: China keeps it low-key as TikTok prepares to take fight for survival to U.S. courts
The government of China would take issue with every keyword in that phrase. The communist revolution in China was deliberately atheistic, viewing religion as a threat and distraction to a productive society. Consequently, in China rights are bestowed solely by the state and, thus, cannot be considered inalienable.
That’s why the debate happening in the U.S. wouldn’t happen in China. In fact, by authoritarian fiat, the Chinese government restricts access to foreign-based internet companies within its borders, fearing the dissemination of uncontrolled information among its citizens.
But because the American democratic system is founded on the idea that rights are endowed by a transcendent authority, our human governors are obligated to have such debates lest we take such rights too lightly. At least to some degree, we still acknowledge the danger Alexander Pope warned of in his Essays on Man: “Snatch from His hand the balance and the rod. Rejudge His justice, become the god of God.” And so our lawmakers can and should debate the legislation, and it should be litigated in our courts for the purposes of checks and balances in an effort to confront the complex tension between national security concerns and the preservation of American values.
Given China’s position as a top U.S. adversary, the apprehensions of DATA Act proponents are founded. Nevertheless, those apprehensions must be balanced against the cherished American values of free speech and free enterprise. Historically, the United States has leaned towards safeguarding such inalienable rights, even when doing so risks our sense of security. In other words, we are careful not to infringe such rights, perhaps at least giving a nod of respect for their transcendent source.
TikTok has argued that a ban on the app would equate to a ban on the export of American culture and values to the global community of users. TikTok’s response is curious, considering the unquestionable authority with which the Chinese government imposes draconian restrictions on digital information and speech. TikTok’s inconsistent response provides the contrast we need to see the beauty in another Judeo-Christian principle, commonly referred to as “The Golden Rule:” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Unlike other interpretations of the Golden Rule, which advocate for reciprocity, the biblical rendition found on Jesus’ lips in Matthew 7:12 emphasizes sacrificial altruism — doing for others irrespective of their response.
TikTok’s appeal to First Amendment and free enterprise principles, which are antithetical to the Chinese government’s stance, underscores the inherent dilemma faced in Western democracies founded on Judeo-Christian values — the delicate balance of protecting our God-given rights while ensuring our national security. This balancing act is undoubtedly challenging, but it is a pursuit rooted in the aspiration to treat others as we wish to be treated ourselves.
This is not to say that we shouldn’t give careful consideration to national security concerns and how the data of millions of Americans can be used against them. Of course we should.
But just as vital is the fact that we are able and willing to actually have the debate. We are actively trying to achieve the balance. We are trying to live in the tension. We are trying to maintain the delicate equilibrium between liberty and safety. For liberty without safety is anarchy while safety without liberty is bondage. As flawed as we might be in our efforts, the fires of our debates are tacit acknowledgments of the transcendent Source from which the values we cherish originate.
–
Abdu Murray is a speaker, author, and attorney who specializes in addressing issues where religious faith and emerging cultural trends intersect and collide. Since founding Embrace the Truth in 2004, Abdu has spent decades analyzing how the major religious and non-religious thought traditions have attempted to address emerging cultural issues.He has written four books, including “Saving Truth,” “Grand Central Question,” “Apocalypse Later” and “More than a White Man’s Religion.” His words have been featured in Fox News, Christianity Today, The Washington Times, The Christian Post and The Western Journal.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.