A friend of mine, who has a PhD, posted the following on Facebook last week: "If you have been wondering why posts that share false information about Covid19 keep getting removed - it's because people can literally die because people believe the content of that post.
As in dead.
So yeah. Thanks tech companies!"
After I pulled myself off the floor. We had a discussion on Facebook about his comment. More about this later. This was actually followed by several sleepless nights, when I wondered (again) where our country is headed.
Over the last few months, I have watched with anguish as we have, like so many lemmings, allowed our freedom of speech to be curtailed, our businesses to be shuttered, our freedom to worship be eroded and sat idly by while violent marxist thugs have hidden under media cover of "peaceful protests" while destroying city after city. Let us begin with a review of what the first amendment actually says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
I, like many of you have not been allowed to worship at church since February. I have the great misfortune of living under the Jay Inslee dictatorship in the State of Washington. The deep thinking Jay's silence has been deafening over the rioting and destruction in Seattle. But I can't go to church and worship in the way I'm accustomed to. Somehow, rioting is safe from Covid, but church worhship is not--even when my church is volunatarily distancing, cleaning and sanitizing like crazy and limiting activities. Do you see a problem with this?
The attacks on free speech are much more subtle, and because they are not being perpetrated by the government, no-one seems to be concerned. We have been sliding down the slippery slope to policing thought for a long time. Is started with the PC culture that is offended at a word, terrified of a differing opinion and ever on the prowl waiting to unleash a vicious, personal attack if you dare to disagree. We are now in a environment where there are "accepted" opinions versus everything else. Acceptable thought is determined by the mainstream media and enforced by Google, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. They have taken it upon themselves, being unbiased and incapable of error or being influenced by their own opinion (please note the heavy sarcasm), to prohibit posts or opinions they deem false or dangerous. Do you see a problem with this?
The first thing you may say is that they are private companies and they have the right to censor as they please. Technically you are correct. They are not government entities and they are not required to protect free speech. However, there is a catch. They pass themselves off as neutral and impartial; as public forums of free speech. This structure has been granted them, with great latitude under 47 U.S. Code Section 230 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230) which assumes that "interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity". In return they are granted liability protection for the "good faith" restriction of "material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected..." It is obvious to me that the tech companies listed above have taken great license with "objectionable" posts, opinions or web pages. Google directs users to the pages they want seen. Social media entities who will not curtail the use of their mediums for looters to coordinate their criminal behavior will censor the President of the United States for an opinion they disagree with. Google willingly works hand-in-hand with the Chinese government to stifle speech and information there, selling their souls for the almighty dollar, while manipulating Google searches here.
(As an aside, concerns have also been raised regarding the monopolistic manner in which these companies are operating. You may argue that there are other options and you don't have to use these forums. Bing is a decent alternative to Google, but there really aren't any alternatives for Facebook, Twitter or YouTube. If Senators Ted Cruz and Elizabeth Warren share these same concerns, there must be something to it. https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=4630, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/barr-actions-coming-in-big-tech-anti-trust-investigations-over-next-few-weeks, https://time.com/5548003/elizabeth-warren-break-up-amazon-google-facebook/)
But let's get to the heart of the matter. The concept of free speech is one of the most fundamental pillars on which our Republic is built. It is larger than the fact that government cannot enact any laws to abridge free speech. The Constitution doesn't make any distinction between opinions and opinions that you deem dangerous. (The only exception of course being that you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, when there is no fire.) Somehow, we have gone from political correctness to a total forgetting of what free speech means. The unwritten corolarries that accompany it are free thought, the right to your own opinion, the right to not listen, the right to disagree with, turn off or ignore any speech you don't wish to hear. But when any of us get in the business of grading speech as true or false, dangerous or safe, popular or unpopular, we are on thin ice. If I create a online forum where only conservative opinions are welcomed and state that up front, I reserve the right to boot anyone from the forum I don't like. But, if I create a "public" forum and then start using artificial and arbitrary means to approve or deny speech, I am participating in censorhip. Stop and think for a moment: Is it any more dangerous to our society for the government to censor speech than it is for some of us to voluntarily prohibit free speech? For example, I am adamantly opposed to anti-vaxxers and find their opinions incredibly "dangerous" but I would not have their right to opine taken away. I will never agree with them, but I will defend their right to have their say.
Furthermore, if we as a society agree that we will grant tech companies the authority to ban "undesirable" speech, we are setting ourselves up to be the next target. Humans, by nature, cannot be impartial; they cannot separate themselves from their experiences, their thoughts, their background. Anyone who tells you they can are lying. It's simply not possible. Tech companies are run by people with opinions and I would not trust a single one of them to determine what is truth and what isn't, which speech is dangerous and which isn't. If we give them that kind of power, they can easily turn that against anyone or anything that is no longer "acceptable". For example, if the tech companies determine that Christian thought will not longer be allowed on any of their forums, what can we say? If we have granted them the power to determine truth and they judge it to be false, we have no recourse with them.
Finally, the idea that an opinion can be banned because it can have life and death consequences, is bordering on distopian. Ideas aren't dangerous; actions are. (Clearly there are notable exceptions that are accepted by society: that which is "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing". 47 U.S. Code Section 230) We were founded upon the principle of freedom; freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness. We have a God-given freedom to choose. With those choices come the accompanying consequences. It goes against everything we stand for (or used to) to prohibit an opinion simply because we disagree with it. Because whatever the reason is, it is of necessity an arbitrary measurement. Once we go down that road, where do we stop?
"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me."
The MOST important speech to protect is the speech we disagree with. I can only hope that we reclaim that understanding before we have lost the freedom to do so.
Comments
Post a Comment