OPINION:
In a perfect example of the Nanny State mindset at work, Hillary Clinton insists that the powers-that-be need “total control” in order to make the internet a safer place for users and protect us harm.
Mrs. Clinton is not alone in her distaste for unregulated, free speech online.
Subscribe to have The Washington Times’ Higher Ground delivered to your inbox every Sunday.
A bipartisan chorus that includes both presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Donald Trump has long clamored to weaken or do away with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which essentially acts as a bulwark against online censorship.
It’s a complicated legal issue that involves debates over immunity, liability, net neutrality, and whether or not internet sites are publishers with editorial responsibility for the content posted to their sites, but really, it comes down to the tug-of-war over where censorship (corporate and government) begins and free speech ends.
As Elizabeth Nolan Brown writes for Reason, “What both the right and left attacks on the provision share is a willingness to use whatever excuses resonate — saving children, stopping bias, preventing terrorism, misogyny, and religious intolerance — to ensure more centralized control of online speech. They may couch these in partisan terms that play well with their respective bases, but their aim is essentially the same.”
In other words, the government will use any excuse to suppress dissent and control the narrative.
The internet may well be the final frontier where free speech still flourishes, especially for politically incorrect speech and disinformation, which test the limits of our so-called egalitarian commitment to the First Amendment’s broad-minded principles.
On the internet, falsehoods and lies abound, misdirection and misinformation dominate, and conspiracy theories go viral.
This is to be expected, and the response should be more speech, not less.
Indeed, in the face of the government’s own authoritarian power grabs, coverups, and conspiracies, a relatively unfettered internet may be our sole hope of speaking truth to power.
The right to criticize the government and speak out against government wrongdoing is the quintessential freedom.
You see, disinformation isn’t the problem. Government coverups and censorship are the problem.
Unfortunately, the government has become increasingly intolerant of speech that challenges its power, reveals its corruption, exposes its lies, and encourages the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices. Every day in this country, those who dare to speak their truth to the powers that be find themselves censored, silenced, or fired.
While there are all kinds of labels being put on so-called “unacceptable” speech today, the real message being conveyed by those in power is that Americans don’t have a right to express themselves if what they are saying is unpopular, controversial, or at odds with what the government determines to be acceptable.
Where the problem arises is when you put the power to determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government agencies, the courts, and the police.
Remember, this is the same government that uses the words “anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.
This is also the same government that has a growing list — shared with fusion centers and law enforcement agencies — of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations, and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in their being labeled potential enemies of the state.
For instance, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched, or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted, anarchic or sovereign), you could be at the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.
Thus, no matter how well-meaning the politicians make these encroachments on our rights appear, in the right (or wrong) hands, even the most well-intentioned government law or program can be — and has been — perverted, corrupted, and used to advance illegitimate purposes once profit and power are added to the equation.
We are moving fast down that slippery slope to an authoritarian society in which the only opinions, ideas, and speech expressed are the ones permitted by the government and its corporate cohorts.
This is how it begins.
Of course, this is all part of a larger trend in American governance whereby dissent is criminalized and pathologized, and dissenters are censored, silenced, declared unfit for society, labeled dangerous or extremist, or turned into outcasts and exiled.
This is how you subdue a populace.
The ensuing silence in the face of government-sponsored tyranny, terror, brutality, and injustice is deafening.
–
Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His latest books “The Erik Blair Diaries” and “Battlefield America: The War on the American People” are available at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Nisha Whitehead is the Executive Director of The Rutherford Institute. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.