The fallout from the COVID pandemic and, more recently, Elon Musk’s decision to release previously undisclosed documents known as the Twitter Files have made the public aware of the Democrats’ desire to censor online content. It’s a disturbing reality that goes against one of the nation’s core values. Unfortunately, the inclination to want to censor speech seems to be catching on. It’s a trend to watch as the country officially enters the presidential election season with this week's first Republican primary debate.
According to a recent Pew Research opinion poll, most people in the country believe that the government and technology companies should censor untrue content. It’s a harrowing reality of the Left’s cultural influence on society and a sharp pivot away from the nation’s founding principle of free speech. What’s particularly troubling is that the poll shows it’s the country’s political Left leading this charge to suppress speech.
NIKKI HALEY CLAIMED DEBATE SPOTLIGHT AMONG CROWD OF 'SCREAMING MEN'
“The recent Pew Research survey found just over half of Americans now support the U.S. government censoring information online that is considered false,” said Mike Matthys, co-founder of the Institute for a Better Internet. “This new majority is driven by the 70% of Democrats who support such federal government censorship of online content.”
“Not surprisingly, recent government efforts so far have strongly encouraged censorship of content that is inconvenient for the government’s political narrative or content that argues against current government policies,” Matthys said. “These efforts have been revealed from the Twitter Files investigation, and many emails recovered through FOIA requests that show various government officials, including the White House and Democrat members of Congress, specifically requesting Twitter, Facebook, and Google/YouTube to remove content and to ban users they did not like.”
Matthys is correct. Look no further than the Biden administration’s attempt to establish a Soviet-type censorship committee that controlled the flow of public information with the proposed Disinformation Governance Board. Democrats wanted to restrict what they felt was incorrect information. This was particularly dangerous because, as Democrats have repeatedly demonstrated, they consider false information to be just ideological viewpoints with which they disagree.
For example, look no further than the Left’s attempted censorship of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) regarding the efficacy of wearing masks because Democrats considered the information false and deemed Paul’s speech “dangerous.” There was a similar condemnation of Paul regarding the senator’s criticisms of Dr. Anthony Fauci. Once again, Paul was criticized and claimed to be spreading misinformation. Later, as more facts and evidence were revealed, Paul was vindicated. This kind of dangerous censorship is what has Matthys concerned.
“The U.S. Supreme Court has regularly rejected this notion of allowing the government to itself determine which information is to be considered truth and which is to be considered false. The court has recognized in such cases as Alvarez (2012) and Brandenburg (1969) that while false information can indeed be harmful, allowing a then-current governing political party to determine which information is true or false is far more harmful and effectively leads us down the path toward authoritarian rule,” Matthys said. “There is too much incentive for the government to eventually expand censorship to hide minority opinions, political speech of the opposition, academic/science studies with which the government disagrees, or general 'counter speech' that debates against the government’s narrative.”
One of the most egregious efforts of this kind of censorship is from President Joe Biden and his administration. They frantically warned about the dangers of misinformation and “protecting democracy” to rile up voters. However, they are the biggest purveyors of both. They distract everyone with their hyperbolic hysteria so they can do what they claim to be against. And they used these kinds of tactics to restrict opposing viewpoints and suppress speech.
“The Biden administration mistook Democratic support for censorship to mean they should create a new bureaucracy literally named the Disinformation Governance Board inside the Department of Homeland Security,” Matthys said. “This Orwellian 1984-style entity created such a firestorm of backlash that the administration was eventually and surprisingly forced to back away from these plans to create a so-called Ministry of Truth.”
“What Democrats rarely consider is how their planned government censorship efforts will work when there is a Republican president who appoints Republican heads of the relevant government agencies,” Matthys said. “Would Democrat voters who support government censorship today be happy to see a future President Trump or President DeSantis appointing Chris Rufo or Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) as the head of an agency that will effectively decide which online content is to be considered a truth or a falsehood? In American history, we rarely go more than eight years before the out-of-power political party wins national elections and takes over the White House.”
However, Matthys suggested a solution to the Democrat’s despotic thirst for censorship and information regulation. It’s an idea that can protect against harmful or dangerous information being spread while simultaneously not restricting or limiting political speech.
“Far simpler and far more constitutionally legal is to change the standard test from true or false to a test of whether or not the content is imminently harmful to a person(s). This eliminates the need for subject matter experts to debate which side of an argument is true and which side is false – and makes it more difficult for content to be censored simply because the government or a monopoly platform (or a fact-checker working on behalf of the government or monopoly platform) disagrees with the content,” Matthys said.
“Determining whether content is imminently harmful or not may also be subjective, but we have literally thousands of highly qualified arbitration judges who are experienced and skilled at assessing harm. As is utilized by other industries, a non-government entity that leverages arbitration judges can be utilized to provide a non-political accountability review of industry behavior through the lens of harmful or not; in this case, a review of content moderation policies as proposed here,” Matthys added.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The country was founded on certain unalienable rights endowed by our Creator. Freedom of speech is at the heart of these rights and the nation’s spirit. Yet, it’s a right that Democrats seem intent on erasing. As technology advances in the 21st century, content moderation and potential censorship issues aren’t going away anytime soon. And, as the Left continues to look for ways to skirt rules and usurp authority, ensuring that free speech is not limited should be of the utmost concern.
“Transparency is also key to ensure content moderation is fair and focused on imminent harm, especially transparency for any and all communications from government and government-funded entities to the online platforms,” Matthys added.