Freedom of speech is a protected right, but also a complex issue

February 21, 2023

One of the founding principles of the United States that Americans cherish is the right to freedom of speech. Its origins date back to ancient Greece. The Greeks considered free speech, meaning to “speak candidly,” a democratic principle.

America is one of the nations where this is considered important. Our Founders thought it was so important as to earn inclusion in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Americans have the protected right to criticize the government and speak their minds without fear of being censored or persecuted.

Through the two-plus centuries of America’s existence, the courts have ruled on this right. For example, in 1919, the Supreme Court ruled in the case Schenck v. United States that individuals are not entitled to speech that presents a “clear and present danger” to society. On the other hand, in1969, the court declared in Brandenburg v. Ohio that, generally, even inflammatory speech, such as racist language by a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, should be protected unless it is likely to cause violence.

So, dangerous language is not protected, but inflammatory speech that is not dangerous is protected.

In a free society, all citizens must be able to think for themselves, to choose their goals and pathways to achieve them. In America, people are free to express their ideas, even if those ideas are unpopular, or wrong. And, as we have seen, those “wrong” ideas may sometimes be proven right. 

But on the world stage, just how free is speech in America? World Population Review in 2020 listed the “Top 30 Countries with the Most Freedom of Speech/Expression.” And the United States ranks near the bottom of that list, along with Luxembourg and Peru, with a rating of .74 on a 1.00-point scale

Leading the world are: Denmark at .95; Belgium at .87; and Finland, Switzerland and Uruguay at .86. In between those high marks and the U.S. position are 22 other nations who rated higher than we did. Lowest of all nations is Panama at .65. We are closer to the bottom than we are to the top.

Interestingly, while the U.S. ranked at the bottom of the top 30 nations for free speech, a Pew Research Center poll ranked the U.S. at the very top of the list of “Whose Citizens Value Free Speech the Most.”

Why would the nation whose citizens value free speech more than any other nation not have the greatest degree of free speech?

“We the people tell the government what to do. It doesn’t tell us,” former President Ronald Reagan once said. “We the people are the driver; the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. 

“Almost all the world’s constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our constitution is a document in which we the people tell the government what it is allowed to do. We the people are free,” he said. 

Obviously, if the American people value free speech more than any other people, and if they have told the government through the Constitution that we will have free speech, then government isn’t doing its job on this subject.

There is incontrovertible evidence that some social media platforms play favorites with political opinions. Platforms have the right to control content. They can control “misinformation” or “disinformation,” and “false information.” But it is not okay to term things as “misinformation” or “disinformation,” or say that something is “false” because it is contrary to their political opinion.

A New York Post opinion piece by Miranda Devine said that a “little-noticed federal lawsuit, Missouri v. Biden, is uncovering astonishing evidence of an entrenched censorship scheme cooked up between the federal government and Big Tech …” Sixty-seven officials and agencies are accused of pressuring Facebook, Twitter and Google to censor users for alleged misinformation or disinformation. The Post was one victim of this alleged malfeasance.

Former Hawaii Democrat Congresswoman and former presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard appeared before a new subcommittee of the House of Representatives that is dedicated to probing the weaponization of the federal government earlier this month. She expressed the necessity of maintaining free speech in the United States, even when some of that speech is objectionable to some, and that includes hate speech, she said.

She cited efforts by social media to control the information that users could see, including her accounts on some of those media sites that were suspended or blocked without explanation. 

This action has social media, and perhaps also federal government agencies, putting themselves in place to decide what the rest of us can and will see, hear and read. Having some ideas blocked by social media — or worse, government agencies — is not freedom of speech. It is, in fact, un-American.

In addition to the previous quote from Reagan, he also offered these, which are fitting: “Government is not the solution to our problem, government IS the problem." And, “freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”

All of those who are elected, appointed or hired to work for the people in the federal government need to stop being politicians and start being Americans.

Elon Musk’s releasing of Twitter files proves what so many thought

December 13, 2022

It is possible that there is a new person atop the left’s “Most Disliked Person” list. And that person, replacing former President Donald Trump, is the new owner of Twitter, Tesla owner Elon Musk. Or maybe Musk will merely be added to the list below Trump’s name.

Twitter and Facebook have long been criticized for censoring certain kinds of tweets and posts, including those of conservatives and those whose opinions run counter to liberal thinking. Now that Twitter is not owned and operated by someone who believes in censorship, things are changing. And evidence to support the long-held beliefs that social media sites were infringing on free speech is coming to light.

Not only is the censorship of certain topics now shown to be fact, but some, perhaps many, of the items censored were valid and important.

One conservative user, “Stanford University's Dr. Jay Bhattacharya — a longstanding opponent of a COVID groupthink during the pandemic who expressed opposition to lockdowns" was placed on the site’s secret blacklists, as reported by Fox News, which is as bad to the left was Twitter was good.

This man is no average guy expressing an uneducated opinion. Yet, in its efforts to protect a faulty narrative, Twitter blacklisted him.

Bari Weiss, founder and editor of The Free Press, posted on Twitter earlier this month that, “A new #TwitterFiles investigation reveals that teams of Twitter employees build blacklists, prevent disfavored tweets from trending, and actively limit the visibility of entire accounts or even trending topics — all in secret, without informing users.”

Her revelations are all based upon information provided by Musk from Twitter files he has released.

"Twitter denied that it does such things," Weiss noted. "In 2018, Twitter's Vijaya Gadde (then Head of Legal Policy and Trust) and Kayvon Beykpour (Head of Product) said, ‘We do not shadow ban.’ They added, ‘And we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology.’" Former Twitter owner Jack Dorsey said as much in a Congressional hearing.

One technique used is visibility filtering, a senior Twitter employee told Weiss: “Think about visibility filtering as being a way for us to suppress what people see to different levels. It’s a very powerful tool.”

 A post on msn.com offered the following: “Liberals on Twitter panned the latest ‘Twitter Files’ revelations from Elon Musk and journalist Matt Taibbi Friday which showed the internal communications of Twitter leading up to the decision to ban former President Donald Trump from the social media platform in early 2021.

“The third ‘Twitter Files’ installment – this time dubbed, ‘THE REMOVAL OF DONALD TRUMP,’ presented documents showing that Twitter staff banned Trump not solely based on tweets he made during January 6th, but on the ‘context surrounding’ Trump and his supporters’ actions ‘over the course of the election and frankly last 4+ years.’”

And more inside information: A member of Facebook’s Oversight Board and former Prime Minister of Denmark Helle Thorning Schmidt, said, “Free speech is not an absolute human right,” at a Politico Europe event. “It has to be balanced with other human rights.” Schmidt may have said what’s what in Denmark, but that’s not the way things are in America, where free speech is guaranteed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And that includes unpopular speech.

What we know and are learning shows that the mindset of Twitter’s boss and employees was one of cheating, censoring speech by deplatforming, suspending users, and other techniques to achieve its liberal/progressive goals, including winning the election of 2020.

“Deplatforming is certainly an effective tool when it comes to countering terrorist and like-minded extremist groups online. But the fact that this tactic is being used against individuals and organizations that do not fit these categories is a terrifying abuse of power,” reported The Washington Times.

“Such a tactic has proven to be just as effective in manipulating mainstream electoral campaigns. One of the most egregious examples of this was when Facebook and Twitter censored the New York Post over the paper’s exposés about Hunter Biden’s emails and corruption. In other words, social media platforms baselessly characterized the Post’s investigative journalism as ‘misinformation’ and blocked it.”

The Times story goes on to say that a news report from the Media Research Center shows that some voters “would not have voted for the Biden-Harris presidential ticket if they knew at least one of the eight news stories that were suppressed by big tech and mainstream media outlets.”

Twitter was and is a platform owned by a private company. According to webopedia.com, “Social media platforms are interactive digital channels that focus on the creation and sharing of thoughts, ideas, and information through virtual networks. These platforms enable users to take part in social networking by creating content, sharing their thoughts, commenting on other user content, and reposting it.”

Twitter and Facebook can control what is on their platform. They can prohibit truly dangerous language. But to take a political side, without a public statement to that effect, and then secretly censor the other political side is dishonest, and un-American.

Elon Musk has a good start to cleaning up Twitter, and hopefully will keep it politically neutral. Maybe Facebook will clean up, too.

America is a much weaker nation today than it used to be

Many of us living today were born at a time when a family most often consisted of a mother, a father, and one or more children. The father — and sometimes the mother, also — worked to support the family. The children grew up in an atmosphere where things like a basic education, a close-knit family that survived on love for each other and respect for others, preparing to get a job and probably getting married and having a family of their own, were normal. And children were then prepared to repeat the cycle.

This age-old process produced a stable, mature society that helped America, which was brilliantly designed, develop into the leading nation in our world. And today there are still many people who are raised that way and will continue to live that way.

But through recent decades, this process has been weakened, and some of the influences that weakened it have come directly from our federal government. 

Today, America is a much weaker nation than it used to be, in many ways. Many people seem to be unaware of that, and others are unconcerned with the state of things. Will America follow the same path as Rome? Will it be destroyed from within because its people do not know, or have abandoned the governmental and social structures that made it great?

In addition to the Roman Empire, Babylon and Greece fell. Many of us watched as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (the Soviet Union, or USSR) fell apart. These once-great nations did themselves in. They were careless with their strength and glory, and they abandoned what helped them grow, and destroyed themselves.

There is a story from the early days of the United States. In Philadelphia in 1787, as delegates to the Constitutional Convention were leaving Independence Hall, from the crowd of interested onlookers a woman approached Benjamin Franklin. She asked, “well, Doctor, what do we have, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied, “a republic, if you can keep it.”

Great nations evolve. They start from meager, often negative beginnings; they gradually grow to a level of freedom, security and comfort.

But then devolution begins. After time, comfort leads to forgetting the past struggles and the need to conserve what made them what they are. Seeking abundance takes control. With abundance comes an attitude of superiority, accompanied by greater apathy for the processes that brought development and success. That leads to selfishness. Selfishness leads to societal division and discord. And eventually, discord brings collapse. 

How far down that road has America traveled? What are the signs? Here are some.

A. Government is too big, costs too much and is too involved in our daily lives.

The federal government website tells us that “There are roughly 2 million civilian government jobs at more than 120 federal departments and agencies, not including the U.S. Postal Service.”

A federal department rules over education, which should be a local and state responsibility. Government inserts itself in other areas where it is not needed, wanted, or supposed to be. Ten thousand new IRS employees, they say, are “needed” to process tax returns, or for whatever purpose the government may direct.

Many government agencies are encouraged to put into effect rules with the force of law. But in America, only Congress can make laws. And then government agencies are sometimes ordered not to enforce the law, like on the southern border, allowing illegal entry of people, drugs and gangs. And at the state and local level, district attorneys in several states are not prosecuting some or many crimes.

In a Gallup poll last September, 52 percent said government is doing too many things, and prefer lower taxes and fewer government services.

B. Some military leaders think “equity” among races is more important than having the most qualified people functioning in the most effective military possible. Shifting attention from readiness to identity equity is dangerous. Mortars, bombs and bullets do not seek targets evenly by race, they seek available targets, perhaps made easier by this new wokeness. Military personnel must be united against a common enemy, not against those in other sub-groups because of race or other irrelevant differences.

C. One political party is straying from, and working to be rid of, some of the principles established more than 200 years ago. Members of Congress have discussed doing away with the filibuster and the Electoral College, which protect minority interests and the interests of smaller states from the tyranny of the majority; and stacking the Supreme Court to achieve dominance through law-making by judges and justices. 

On that subject Justice Clarence Thomas said in Utah Friday, “Are we leaving [our children] a mess or are we leaving them a country? Are we leaving them chaos or are we going to leave them a court?”

D. Social media companies believe they have the power to censor speech that does not toe the line of their preferred set of ideals. Large corporations buy up competitors, making life easier and more profitable for themselves, but not necessarily better for the people.

The signs are there, if we just honestly look for them. And then work to reverse them.

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.

Reining in social media censorship, and ending the debate commission

 

There is increasing evidence supporting the idea that certain social media platforms are getting too big for their already huge britches. Two of them, Twitter and Facebook, cannot seem to kick the habit of censoring some of their participants.

As the owners of a platform, Twitter and Facebook have complete control of it, of course. And both of them have millions of users, thereby putting them in a very small class with a lot of weight to sling around.

And because of their huge number of users and the influence that those big numbers carry with them, they should not arbitrarily restrict or block what some users post, while leaving others alone to post as they please. 

We also need to keep in mind that these platforms are under no legal obligation to monitor the postings of their users for accuracy, only for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, as are those sites classified as “publishers.”

In fact, social media are protected from legal action for what their users post by 47 U.S.C. § 230, a Provision of the Communication Decency Act (CDA), unlike media that are considered publishers, such as newspapers and broadcasters.

Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." 

This means that online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. Twitter and Facebook are not responsible for the truth/accuracy of any posts made by users, beyond the criminal and intellectual property-based claims mentioned earlier.

Despite the protections the CDA provides to social media, both Twitter and Facebook routinely block user posts/comments that breach their nebulous “rules of the road,” often on the premise of inaccuracy.

So why are Twitter and Facebook so concerned with what their users have to say on their platform, when they are under no legal obligation to be concerned about accuracy and such?

And, as it turns out, most or all of those censored posts/comments are made by … wait for it … conservatives/Republicans.

Among users that have been, and perhaps still are, arbitrarily blocked or restricted are President of the United States Donald Trump, White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany, the satire site The Babylon Bee, and the 219-year-old New York Post, the fourth largest newspaper in the country. The latter had all references to a story it published on the Hunter Biden email situation removed/blocked by Twitter, even when made by other users.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey last week called it “unacceptable” that his site blocked users from sharing links to the Post story without providing a clear message as to why it was taking the action. But is that all that Twitter did that was improper?

“Social media companies have a First Amendment right to free speech. But they do not have a First Amendment right to a special immunity denied to other media outlets, such as newspapers and broadcasters,” FCC Chairman Ajit Pai tweeted recently.

Pai recently announced that the FCC plans to “clarify the meaning” of Section 230 that protects these tech giants from being held responsible for content posted by their users.

“The Commission’s General Counsel has informed me that the FCC has the legal authority to interpret Section 230. Consistent with this advice, I intend to move forward with a rulemaking to clarify its meaning,” Pai added.

Perhaps, if social media platforms are going to act like publishers, they will be held to the same legal standards and eligible for the same potential penalties, as are newspapers and broadcasters. Most likely, arbitrarily censoring some users for certain infractions, but not all of them, will carry serious penalties.

These Left-leaning platforms are all too happy to cheat to help push their political agenda. They should not be allowed to use their platforms to affect the beneficial information that users see, and perhaps especially when that information has influence on election choices.

* * *

The Presidential Debate Commission has come under criticism, particularly from President Donald Trump’s campaign and his backers on the political right, for what those critics charge are politically motivated actions.

Without getting into the weeds of those charges, the Commission is the sole agent that organizes the presidential debates, with all details based upon what its members alone decide.

Instead of using an independent commission, that could conceivably be biased, why not allow the campaigns of the two, or perhaps three, candidates who have the most support to work together to establish the details of the debates, including the number of debates, their locations, who the moderators will be, what topics will be included, etc.

With campaign officials agreeing on these details, there would be much less for individual campaigns to disagree with, and it might even produce better debates.

The debate commission system has been around for a long time. Maybe it is time for a new approach to presidential debates.