Censorship is dangerous, especially as science is very rarely settled

Those who resisted the often-conflicting advice from health experts about how to fight the COVID virus, particularly after more than a year of hearing it, were condemned for “not following the science.” And we have heard for years from some people that the science of climate change is settled, and that we must accept those assertions as fact.

It is the reality, however, that science is rarely settled, that there is always the possibility that new information will be discovered and that some theories will be proven wrong, or need to be amended, as a result.

Without getting too deep into the scientific method, Baen Books (baen.com) explains that “science is a process of examination and exploration, not a ‘fact,’ pronouncement, or conclusion. In essence, science consists of formulating a hypothesis from observed facts, creating experiments to prove or disprove the hypothesis, observing the results of the experiments, then making a conclusion to accept or reject the original hypothesis on the basis of those observations.”

One well known example of how scientific theories are wrong and are corrected is the centuries-old theory that the sun, moon and stars revolved around a stationary Earth, or “geocentrism.”

Here is how this “fact” was established:
Question: Why does the sun always rise in the East and set in the West? 
Observations: The sun, moon and stars always follow the same rotation around the Earth. 
Conclusion: The Earth is the center of the system of the sun, moon and stars.

This view of the universe was scientifically sound for its day and age, hundreds of years ago, and thus “settled science.” But centuries later — in the 18th and 19th Centuries — it was thought likely that the sun, not the Earth, might be the center of the system. Heliocentrism entered into and eventually dominated thought on the essence of the solar system. We now know that the planets and their moons revolve around the sun. The settled science was wrong.

Thus, science is very often not settled, and there are frequently different ideas about what is and what isn’t correct that should be examined.

With that in mind, consider the way social media have responded to ideas about COVID that were divergent from the “approved messages.” Those posts were labeled as “false information” by the “fact-checkers” of social media platforms, such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. As a result, they were labeled or blocked on the charge that they contained “harmful” or “dangerous” information. This was done ostensibly “to protect the public.”

But often these platforms were simply keeping opinions contrary to the preferred message from their audience. And not infrequently, those censored messages were actually true and correct. Among information that was correct and helpful, but forbidden, were points about wearing masks, the supposed benefits and risks of vaccination, and natural immunity gained from having had COVID. 

In America, one of our wonderful assets is that we have the freedom of expression. Through freedom to express our ideas, “settled science” may be discovered as incorrect or incomplete, and be improved by new information. New ideas may be presented at any time, and be open to debate, and perhaps lead to better understanding.

Censorship, even when imposed by private entities like social media, is wrong, unless the censored material is unarguably dangerous or harmful. This is so because we are blessed with freedom of speech, and that includes unpopular speech and even bad speech. And also, because even the most heavily supported ideas may be wrong, or in need of being improved upon. Furthermore, keeping unpopular ideas hidden may itself be dangerous.

Many ideas that do not agree with the approved messaging are censored by social media sites. There is a discussion regarding whether a “platform,” which such sites are, can arbitrarily decide what is “false information.” We expect newspapers and other news purveyors to make sure their content is correct, but platforms are not held to that standard, and are intended for open dialog.

You cannot have a useful discussion about important topics if only some information is allowed in the discussion. Social media sites, as platforms, are not supposed to regulate speech, unless it is truly dangerous. Political differences, or mere differences of opinion, are out-of-bounds for being blocked by social media “fact-checkers.”

And while, social media sites may have important information on them, they are not the only place people ought to go to find it. Social media have no business considering themselves as authorities on anything. That is not their role.

Social media must stop playing God, and let people have their say, right, wrong, or undetermined, so long as they do not allow inciting violence or other dangerous activity.

Of course, one reason — perhaps the main or only reason — social media sites engage in censorship is because they have a political purpose, and open dialogue thwarts their efforts to have their ideas win out in the court of public opinion. After all, it is easier for your side to win the argument if it is the only side put forth

But good ideas will win on their inherent content, without needing to censor opposing ideas.

The federal government is growing more intrusive under Joe Biden

First, the FBI was instructed to go after parents who are concerned about their children’s education. This followed news of meetings of school boards where parents spoke out about elements of their children’s education that were at odds with traditional educational curricula.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memo that called for the FBI and DOJ to “address the rise in criminal conduct directed toward school personnel.” This move was described by Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton as an excuse to target parents who are opposed to Critical Race Theory, also known as CRT, and other left-wing teaching materials. This, he said, was done at the behest of a prominent liberal education group, the National School Boards Association.

Fitton said that the memo “compared these parents to domestic terrorists and suggested using the Patriot Act to target them,” and that the Biden DOJ is “targeting average Americans going to school board meetings and complaining about Marxist propaganda brainwashing going on in our nation’s schools.”

“Just like that, you had AG Garland essentially issue an all hands on deck command to the national security establishment to target parents that were ‘threatening’ school board members,” Fitton continued. This move, he said, is “designed to intimidate parents [who are critical] of critical race theory extremism, transgender agenda extremism and the other threats to the safety, security and privacy of their children.”

In doing this, the federal government is attacking a basic operation of our democracy — freedom of speech — he concluded.

While parents were angry that schools had inserted lessons on topics that they not only disagreed with, but were unaware of — and rightly so — there was little evidence of actual violence or real threats to the safety of any school board members or school personnel.

Perhaps Garland, as the nation’s top law enforcement officer and a former judge, is unaware of the state and local law enforcement agencies that actually have jurisdiction in such matters, were there to be evidence of actual violence or intimidation.

Then the Department of Homeland Security sent agents to California in case some truckers decided to form a protest near the stadium where the Super Bowl was to be played, and "potentially block roads in major metropolitan cities" protesting vaccine mandates and other issues.

As reported by ABC7 in Los Angeles, “The agency said the convoy could begin in Southern California as early as this weekend, possibly disrupting traffic around Super Bowl LVI, and reach Washington in March in time for the State of the Union,” citing an Associated Press bulletin.

The report continued, saying, “The White House says the department is ‘surging additional staff’ to the Super Bowl, just in case (emphasis added).”

This action was taken before any actual trouble occurred, and without being asked by local authorities for help. Yet again, the federal government inserts itself into local/regional events, ignoring that there are local law enforcement agencies that could and should address them.

For a protest to make a difference, it must get the attention of those who have implemented the subject of the protest. The Canadian trucker protest has done that, significantly hindering the delivery of needed materials. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has only dug in his heels, refusing to lift the mandates the truckers oppose, despite the problems the protest has caused.

All the while one of the federal government’s legitimate and major areas of concern — the southern border — has been ignored, allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens to enter the country with little or no involvement by federal authorities, other than assisting them in getting into the country through its reckless border policy of inaction. And then flying and busing them in the dark of night around the country to unsuspecting American cities and towns.

“We the people” are fed up with lots of things these days. Government overreach, at all levels, has finally put that last straw on the camel’s back. Resistance to vaccine mandates and vaccine passports has caused a mass protest in Canada and a significant protest in France, as well as some other countries.

Here in the U.S. many are fed up with the continued forced wearing of masks, particularly for young school children. This begs the question: Do masks really work? Well, some do and some don’t. 

For the purposes of stemming the spread of Covid, cloth masks — a very common choice — do not work. But any mask excels in harming the health and development of young children. And vaccines also do not work to prevent catching and spreading the virus.

Where the wearing of masks and getting vaccinated are concerned, that is where the defensive statement “my body, my choice” actually is relevant.

Over-the-top denial of people’s freedoms to ostensibly fight the Covid virus has at last passed the threshold, and people are standing up to the authoritarian control policies of federal, local, and state governments. 

A major benefit of the United States is the guarantee of a broad array of personal freedoms. Seeking those freedoms led to the war against Great Britain that allowed the colonies to establish the most free nation in history, and many Americans are unwilling to let that go.

America is being torn apart from within by bad politics, leftist policies

Watching America collapse or, more accurately, be torn apart from within, is very disturbing. The country has had challenges before. Some of us remember the turbulence of the sixties. The Vietnam War, the hippies and the Civil Rights Movement all had things stirred up. But the country settled down after a while.

Today, the large number of “Americans” who do not know why our system of government is superior to the others, because they were not taught about it, did not learn about it when they were taught, or who just don’t accept it, is truly troublesome.

Barack Obama’s pledge to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” if elected should have started a revolution against that concept. Instead, due to the large number who disagree with and/or don’t understand our nation’s founding principles, it fired up a lot of people who agreed with that idea. Today we are seeing where that mindset has led us.

Our country is divided more than it has been since the Civil War. One political faction wants to change many things, frequently because “times have changed.” Things like doing away with the Electoral College that protects minority interests and getting rid of the Senate filibuster that helps discourage the introduction of highly partisan legislation, and makes it easier to pass one-sided legislation. 

It has also discussed packing the Supreme Court with liberal activists to make laws rather than to correctly interpret laws. This will strengthen and maintain leftist power in Washington for a long time.

And even though Joe Biden won the 2020 election with 81.3 million votes — the most ever — and with the highest voter turnout percentage since 1900, it wants to change election laws to “increase voter turnout.”

The other side, however, wants to protect and defend the brilliant concepts of the Founders that made America superior to every other governmental form yet conceived.

This conservative faction understands that the principles of the U.S. Constitution do not change with the winds of time, or the preferences of political parties. And it understands why they should not change. 

The “conservative” justices on the Supreme Court and other courts work to maintain founding principles, and to save the republic from the suicidal tendencies of the socialist/communist radical left.

Laws that protect people must be followed and protected. And people that cannot or will not live and act in compliance with those laws must be punished. The safety of the populace is of utmost importance in the workings of a good government.

Fortunately, the disastrous results of defund the police, no bail/low bail, and not punishing some crimes are being seen for the irrational blunders they are. Yet millions among us still want to change direction from that which brought us a strong nation, and they are having negative effects on our country.

Education, which has been made far less effective because of the fear surrounding the Covid virus, now is home to a movement, mostly in secret, to improperly change the history curriculum. Some of this occurs at the school board level, some at the school level, and some at the instructor level. And it has spread into other subject areas.

Critical Race Theory (CRT) has been sneaked into classrooms, and rather than teach children that each of them is a valuable individual, it classifies them as either an oppressed person, or an oppressor. The distinction depends not on individual character, but on skin color. 

Instead of encouraging kids to understand and get along with each other, CRT pits groups of kids against each other, further intensifying the discord we see.

Some school boards deny parents their right to express concerns at meetings, and deny them requested materials. Some board members tell parents “I don’t work for you.” Teachers unions resist the importance of getting back into the classroom, and restoring the learning environment.

Reactions to the Covid variants have had devastating effects on the country, and much of the world. Combined with the other issues, things are truly upside-down.

Advice from the scientists has been all over the board. Some of that is a normal part of learning to deal with a new disease. But two years in, there is beginning to be resistance to the control mechanisms put into effect to protect us. 

Governments and businesses mandate vaccinations. Vaccines are designed to keep people from getting a disease. Vaccines in the past have done that. The Polio, Tetanus and Measles vaccines, for example, prevent contracting those diseases. 

Some people use those vaccines to justify forcing Covid vaccinations. But there is a big difference. Covid vaccines do not prevent catching or transmitting Covid. They reportedly reduce the effects of the virus, but do not prevent catching or transmitting it.

And then there is the selective censorship by social media platforms that impede the free exchange of important ideas. It is aimed primarily at conservative politics, and the “approved” Covid messages.

Comments contrary to the approved message were taken down, labeled as “false information” by the self-appointed media judges. Much of that information, however, proved to be correct.

Free speech is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Without the free expression of ideas — good and bad ideas — we are doomed.

Biden’s reasoning for who to appoint to the Supreme Court is flawed

So, President Joe Biden gets to pick a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Back on the campaign trail he pledged to choose a black woman for the position. Why? Because, he said, it’s time.

If there is any good news in this situation, it is that with 99.9 percent certainty his selection, if approved, will not affect the balance on the Court. 

Replacing Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the three liberals on the Court, will almost certainly result in the nomination of a liberal/progressive, keeping the activist — “make law from the bench” — number at three, against six who usually follow the strict constructionist or original intent philosophy when interpreting the U.S. Constitution and laws.

America was once a nation where one earned his or her place on a court bench, in a hall of fame, or at the top of a rating or activity through merit. We are now, more and more, selecting people based not upon their abilities and accomplishments, but on their race or gender. This system is referred to as “equity.” It is more about evening out numbers than seeking out the best.

And there is the possibility that the person Biden nominates may feel that she got the nod only because of her race and gender, not because of her positive attributes.

If we are going to start picking justices for the Court based upon these new criteria, when will the time be for a Hispanic male, an Asian man or woman, or a transgender person? And who will decide when the time is right?

Many or most times — and filling this Supreme Court vacancy is one of those times — the proper choice is the most qualified person. That may well be a black woman. But it might be someone else.  And, if no others are even considered, how can we the people be sure that we are going to have the best possible person nominated for this crucial position?

Every Justice on the Court should be someone trained in the law, who understands and is devoted to the task of upholding the principles of the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the land as written and intended. There are already three on the Court who try to make law from the bench.

The nominee should be someone who has held a judgeship long enough to be familiar with the job, and without regard to their race, gender, political preferences, or the wishes of the woke.

Hopefully, Biden will nominate a black woman with abilities and qualifications equal to Clarence Thomas — who is a black man and one of the greatest Justices of any color, ever — and others seated on the Court.

From SCOTUSblog.com, which has covered the U.S. Supreme Court since 2002, here is some information on potential nominees: “Two potential nominees therefore stand apart from all others: Leondra Kruger, a justice on the California Supreme Court, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.”

“Both are well known to the White House team that will lead the nomination process,” the blog continues. “Kruger is a former Department of Justice attorney. Biden recently appointed Jackson to the court of appeals.”

The report goes on to say that “The president’s bottom-line calculus may reduce to the following. Jackson was recently confirmed by the Senate, making a Supreme Court confirmation process likely to go smoothly. Kruger has never faced Senate confirmation.”

That distinction matters, because if Democrats lose control of the Senate later this year, that would be important if hearings on the president’s nominee were substantially delayed until after the election, or if the first nominee is rejected. A candidate that has cleared the Senate previously would likely speed the process.

Several other names have also been mentioned for the position.

And exactly when did Biden catch the fever for choosing justices based upon the race and/or gender?

His disapproval and opposition to current Justice Thomas in his 1991 nomination hearing gathered headlines. As the then-Senate Judiciary Committee Chair, Biden actually tried to discredit Thomas as a crazy libertarian and reckless judicial activist.

“I assure you I have read all of your speeches, and I have read them in their entirety,” Biden said after Thomas’ opening statement. “And, in the speech you gave in 1987 to the Pacific Research Institute, you said, and I quote, ‘I find attractive the arguments of scholars such as Stephen Macedo who defend an activist Supreme Court that would’ — not could, would — 'strike down laws restricting property rights.’”

Thomas responded by denying what Biden accused him of, but Biden didn't buy it. “Quite frankly, Biden said, “I find it hard to square your speeches with what you are telling me today.”

So, while opposing a well-qualified black man 40 years ago, who despite Biden’s opposition was confirmed, he now believes a black woman should be the next associate justice because “it is time.” 

Time will tell whether Biden intends to nominate the next potential justice for the best reasons, as polls show Americans want. But given his support for the radical left’s agenda, we should not hold our breath.