Elon Musk has now bought control of Twitter. If Musk means what he says about free speech, the Biden administration will have lost a crucially important ally/henchman in its efforts to shut down any speech (political, medical and religious) that it disingenuously labels, “disinformation.”
There is a lawsuit afoot. Former President Trump has sued Twitter, alleging that he, and others, have been banished from Twitter. Trump alleges that Twitter is willfully participating “in joint activity with federal actors.”
Whether you like Donald Trump, or hate him, you had better pray to God that he wins. If he loses, your First Amendment right of “free speech” will be reduced to your “right to say what the government permits you to say.” The First Amendment will be reduced to ink on worthless paper.
To see the path on which Biden’s administration is taking us, consider this.
Host Mika Brzezinski interviewing Surgeon General Vivek Murthy on MSNBC, asked: "What do you think are the best ways to push back on misinformation about COVID that continue to be aggressively pushed, whether it be on Joe Rogan's podcast or all over Facebook?"
Had I been Murthy, I would have said, "We need to utilize the same media platforms, and carefully address what we believe to be misinformation, and explain to the American people why what we call misinformation is truly misinformation."
For any American who cares at all about our First Amendment "right of free speech," the remedy for real "misinformation" is "counter-speech;" not prior restraint, censorship, gagging.
Murthy knows that. Nevertheless, he reached for the traditional remedies of the Hitler/Stalin-types: prior restraint, censorship, gagging. Murthy wants Facebook, and Twitter, to do the government's dirty work for him. Look at Murthy's answer: “This not just about what the government can do. This is about companies ... recognizing that the only way we get past misinformation is if we are careful about what we say and use the power that we have to limit the spread of misinformation."
In a free country who gets to decide whether information is “disinformation?” The government? Giant social media platforms doing the government’s bidding?
Or do the citizens of a free country have the right to hear all sides of the issue, and then have the right to make their own decision as to which information is “accurate?”
Has anybody anywhere barred Murthy from appearing on CNN, FOX, NBC, Facebook, or Twitter to provide what he believes to be "accurate counter- information?" To rebut Rogan’s alleged "misinformation?"
Is the surgeon general, the sole arbiter of what is "accurate information?"
So, how does a "company like Facebook use the power it has "to limit the spread of so-called “misinformation?” Ask Donald Trump.
The gist of Trump’s lawsuit alleges: Twitter has increasingly engaged in impermissible censorship resulting from threatened legislative action, a misguided reliance upon Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, and willful participation in joint activity with federal actors.
Mr. Trump's suit is a class-action suit. It seeks to vindicate not only his rights, but the rights of others similarly situated.
President Biden and his henchmen, the likes of Vivik Murthy, know damn well that no branch of the U.S. government, has any right to impose prior restraint or censorship on the political or medical speech of any American, without first demonstrating to a court that a "clear and present danger” exists, which cannot be averted except by use of a prior restraint.
If the U.S. government, with experts like Dr. Fauci, can't win a Covid argument against the Joe Rogans of the world, then heaven help us in conflicts with China and Russia.
If, given Elon Musk, the Biden administration can no longer count on Twitter, et al, to do its bidding to shut down claimed “disinformation,” watch for the government try to do its own dirty work using the likes of Sec. Alejandro Mayorkas, and his Department of Homeland Security, with its new “Disinformation Governance Board,” run by its fruit-cake tzar, Nina Jancowicz.
In January of 1933 Adolph Hitler became the German Chancellor. On October 4, 1933, he decreed a new Reich Press Law. William L. Shirer describes its operation: "Section 14 of the Press Law ordered editors to 'keep out of the newspapers anything, which in any manner, is misleading to the public.'"
Host Mika Brzezinski interviewing Surgeon General Vivek Murthy on MSNBC, asked: "What do you think are the best ways to push back on misinformation about COVID that continue to be aggressively pushed, whether it be on Joe Rogan's podcast or all over Facebook?"
Had I been Murthy, I would have said, "We need to utilize the same media platforms, and carefully address what we believe to be misinformation, and explain to the American people why what we call misinformation is truly misinformation."
For any American who cares at all about our First Amendment "right of free speech," the remedy for real "misinformation" is "counter-speech;" not prior restraint, censorship, gagging.
Murthy knows that. Nevertheless, he reached for the traditional remedies of the Hitler/Stalin-types: prior restraint, censorship, gagging. Murthy wants Facebook, and Twitter, to do the government's dirty work for him. Look at Murthy's answer: “This not just about what the government can do. This is about companies ... recognizing that the only way we get past misinformation is if we are careful about what we say and use the power that we have to limit the spread of misinformation."
In a free country who gets to decide whether information is “disinformation?” The government? Giant social media platforms doing the government’s bidding?
Or do the citizens of a free country have the right to hear all sides of the issue, and then have the right to make their own decision as to which information is “accurate?”
Has anybody anywhere barred Murthy from appearing on CNN, FOX, NBC, Facebook, or Twitter to provide what he believes to be "accurate counter- information?" To rebut Rogan’s alleged "misinformation?"
Is the surgeon general, the sole arbiter of what is "accurate information?"
So, how does a "company like Facebook use the power it has "to limit the spread of so-called “misinformation?” Ask Donald Trump.
The gist of Trump’s lawsuit alleges: Twitter has increasingly engaged in impermissible censorship resulting from threatened legislative action, a misguided reliance upon Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, and willful participation in joint activity with federal actors.
Mr. Trump's suit is a class-action suit. It seeks to vindicate not only his rights, but the rights of others similarly situated.
President Biden and his henchmen, the likes of Vivik Murthy, know damn well that no branch of the U.S. government, has any right to impose prior restraint or censorship on the political or medical speech of any American, without first demonstrating to a court that a "clear and present danger” exists, which cannot be averted except by use of a prior restraint.
If the U.S. government, with experts like Dr. Fauci, can't win a Covid argument against the Joe Rogans of the world, then heaven help us in conflicts with China and Russia.
If, given Elon Musk, the Biden administration can no longer count on Twitter, et al, to do its bidding to shut down claimed “disinformation,” watch for the government try to do its own dirty work using the likes of Sec. Alejandro Mayorkas, and his Department of Homeland Security, with its new “Disinformation Governance Board,” run by its fruit-cake tzar, Nina Jancowicz.
In January of 1933 Adolph Hitler became the German Chancellor. On October 4, 1933, he decreed a new Reich Press Law. William L. Shirer describes its operation: "Section 14 of the Press Law ordered editors to 'keep out of the newspapers anything, which in any manner, is misleading to the public.'"
Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea
First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on May 8, 2022
First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on May 8, 2022
No comments:
Post a Comment