Time is running out

[Scott Page]

Time is running out to speak freely about free speech

© Eric Drooker

Americans need to have an important discussion about free speech now — before the Censorship Complex makes it impossible to do so.

The Censorship Complex — whereby Big Tech censorship is induced by the government, media, and media-rating businesses — threatens the future of free speech in this country. To understand how and why, Americans need to talk about speech — and the government's motive to deceive the public.

To frame this discussion, consider these hypotheticals:

• Two American soldiers training Ukraine soldiers in Poland cross into the war zone, ambushing and killing five Russian soldiers. Unbeknownst to the American soldiers, a Ukrainian soldier filmed the incident and provides the footage to an independent journalist who authors an article on Substack, providing a link to the video.
• Russia uses its intelligence service and "bots" to flood social media with claims that the Ukrainians are misusing 90 percent of American tax dollars. In truth, "only" 40 percent of American tax dollars are being wasted or corruptly usurped — a fact that an independent journalist learns when a government source leaks a Department of Defense report detailing the misappropriation of the funds sent to Ukraine.
• A third of Americans disagree with the continued funding of the war in Ukraine and organically prompt #NoMoreMoola to trend. After this organic hashtag trend begins, Russian operatives amplify the hashtag while the Russian-run state media outlet, Russia Today, reports on the hashtag trend.
• Following the collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank, the communist Chinese government uses social media to create the false narrative that 10 specifically named financial institutions are bordering on collapsing. In reality, only Bank A1 is financially troubled, but a bank run on any of the 10 banks would cause those banks to collapse too.

In each of these scenarios — and countless others — the government has an incentive to deceive the country. Americans need to recognize this reality to understand the danger posed by the voluntary censorship of speech.

Our government will always seek to quash certain true stories and seed certain false stories: sometimes to protect human life, sometimes to protect our national defense or the economy or public health, sometimes to obtain the upper hand against a foreign adversary, and sometimes to protect the self-interests of its leaders, preferred policy perspectives, and political and personal friends.

Since the founding, America's free press provided a check on a government seeking to bury the truth, peddle a lie, or promote its leaders' self-interest. At times, the legacy press may have buried a story or delayed its reporting to protect national security interests, but historically those examples were few and far between.

Even after the left-leaning slant of legacy media outlets took hold and "journalists" became more open to burying (or spinning) stories to protect their favored politicians or policies, new media provided a stronger check and a way for Americans to learn the truth. The rise of social media, citizen journalists, Substack, and blogs added further roadblocks to both government abuse and biased and false reporting.

Donald Trump's rise, his successful use of social media, and new media's refusal to join the crusade against Trump caused a fatal case of Stockholm Syndrome, with Big Tech and legacy media outlets welcoming government requests for censorship. With support from both for-profit and nonprofit organizations and academic institutions, a Censorship Complex emerged, embracing the government's definition of "truth" and seeking to silence any who challenged it, whether it be new media or individual Americans — even experts.

The search for truth suffered as a result, and Americans were deprived of valuable information necessary for self-governance.

We know this because notwithstanding the massive efforts to silence speech, a ragtag group of muckrakers persisted and exposed several official dictates as lies: The Hunter Biden laptop was not Russian disinformation, Covid very well may have escaped from a Wuhan lab, and Trump did not collude with Putin.

But if the Censorship Complex succeeds and silences the few journalists and outlets still willing to challenge the government, Americans will no longer have the means to learn the truth.

Consider again the above hypotheticals. In each of those scenarios, the government — or at least some in the government — has an incentive to bury the truth. In each, it could frame the truth as a foreign disinformation campaign and offer Americans a countervailing lie as the truth.

A populace voluntarily acquiescing in the censorship of speech because it is purportedly foreign misinformation or disinformation will soon face a government that lies, protected by complicit media outlets that repeat those lies as truth, social media websites that ban or censor reporting that challenges the official government narrative, hosting services that deplatform dissenting media outlets, advertisers that starve journalists of compensation, and search engines that hide the results of disfavored viewpoints.

The window is quickly closing on free speech in America, so before it is locked and the curtain thrown shut, we must talk about speech. We need to discuss the circumstances, if any, in which the government should alert reporters and media outlets to supposed foreign disinformation and how. We need to discuss the circumstances, if any, under which Big Tech should censor speech.

Americans need to have this discussion now — before the Censorship Complex makes it impossible to do so.

Margot Cleveland is The Federalist's senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize — the law school's highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.  

[Richard]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023, Scott Page wrote:

Hi Scott, thanks for the post.

I agree that this is an important topic, but I think The Federalist's
analysis is a bit misguided - not that they're fundamentally wrong that
this is an issue we should act on.

So, here's my take... food for thought, perhaps, and I caution that I care
about this and in a few spots "talk like a sailor," but we're all adults
here, right? ... To wit:

>> Americans need to have an important discussion about free speech now

Surely.

>> The Censorship Complex — whereby Big Tech censorship is induced by the
>> government, media, and media-rating businesses — threatens the future
>> of free speech in this country. To understand how and why, Americans
>> need to talk about speech — and the government's motive to deceive the
>> public.

This bit? -meh-

"The Censorship Complex" is nothing new. The reality is that "the freedom
of the press" only exists for those that have a press - it is, after all,
where "all they eyeballs are." That's why the advertising has gone there,
etc. It's not as if a local person in the public square or street corner
has no effect, it's just that it's an entirely local effect - maybe
bringing customers in to the local tavern or convincing you to vote for
someone - and they're available to discuss it with you, etc.

In the modern era, especially with the highly-engineered suburbia of the
USA, there effectively is no public square other than the "social media"
web sites, hence the word choices of the author of that paragraph.

It's appropriate to realize that these are PRIVATE SITES, and under the
constitution and _current_law;_ it's the rough equivalent of entering
someone's house and telling them stuff they don't want to hear and THEY
HAVE EVERY RIGHT to shut it down if they want.

This is an issue of education, that sets expectation AND, critically, the
law, which DOES NOT consider these sites "common carriers," as is done
with the telephone company, for example.

SO, by it's very framing, the argument sets off in an odd direction
regarding censorship.

IMPORTANTLY, "big tech" is NOT the only path forward, it's just the one
most people see today.

>> To frame this discussion, consider these hypotheticals:

>> Two American soldiers training Ukraine soldiers in Poland cross into

...

Yeah, and water is wet: COMMERCIAL MEDIA LIES, and always has.

Again, an educational problem here.

Then THIS is an entirely unclear assertion:

>> A third of Americans disagree with the continued funding of the war in

What, 1/3 of us decided, based on that video or others like it, that they
disagree with the funding?

That's surely a flawed analysis.

>> Following the collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank, the communist

...Which wasn't allowed to complete as it should have! Bluntly, they, the
INVESTORS, fucked up and should pay the price and NONE of us should be
"making them whole," for the simple reason that they, the deposits "we"
are bailing out, weren't FDIC insured, didn't pay into the insurance
program, and, well, as I understand it, only "qualified investors", who
are supposed to know the risks are the people losing out. And, they
should. (Same issue happened in 2008, but I don't want to digress.)

If we step in and "make them whole," all the while they skirt the same
fees we all otherwise pay for insured deposits, well...

>> Chinese government uses social media to create the false narrative that

And the US government doesn't use the media to do the same thing? (I COULD
do a deep dive here but it's a distraction.)

>> 10 specifically named financial institutions are bordering on
>> collapsing.

THAT surely is happening now, fictitious example of the article or not,
and is a result of inappropriate regulation, first PROPERLY imposed by
FDR's programs, and carefully and assiduously dismantled over the decades
since. You want to avoid that? STOP ELECTING IDIOTS WHO ONLY SUPPORT THE
ULTRA-RICH! (But you won't hear / read The Federalists saying any of
this!)

And that's maybe the most important point:

"Lesser evil" voting, believing we have a two-party-system (which is
abjectly false), are THE cause of this, not the Chinese. BOTH very close
to the ENTIRE Republican and Democratic party's candidates serve the
ultra-rich AND NOT US, and yet you (maybe not you personally) believe we
can ONLY vote for two versions of a shit-sandwich? I refuse, personally.

>> In each of these scenarios — and countless others — the government has
>> an incentive to deceive the country.

WRONG ANALYSIS! No, that's confusing the hammer with the carpenter!

Government is a tool. WE can wield it, or THEY - the ultra-rich - can
wield it, but it's a TOOL. We decry the existence of government AT OUR OWN
PERIL because, after all, WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, THE ULTRA-RICH HAVE FULL
CONTROL OVER EVERYTHING! ... Due to their wealth, of course!.. Don't be
stupid! REALIZE that our ONLY enemy here is the ultra-rich, NOT the
Government itself! (Anyone who advocates for a new Constitutional
Convention doesn't realize we'd VERY LIKELY lose what little toe-hold we
have left on so-called "democracy.")

We then get more wrong analysis from the fundamental confusion of hammer
as carpenter, such as this drivel:

>> Our government will always seek to quash certain true stories and seed

The REALITY is that we're all, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT, under the boot-heel
of the ultra-rich, and they use their wealth to get those in influential
positions in both media and government to bend everything possible to
their will. ... AGAIN, it's a HUGE mistake to confuse the hammer with the
carpenter!

>> Since the founding, America's free press provided a check on a

>> government seeking to bury the truth, peddle a lie, or promote its ...

BLAH BLAH BLAH. False. And again, for the same reason:

It's THE ULTRA RICH who are using the press in these ways, AND the
government, too! THINKABOUTIT! Who paid for it? "Cui Bono?" WHO BENEFITS?
It's the ultra-rich who benefit and they pay their henchmen, sycophants
and whoever else to do their bidding so, they, too, benefit. But make no
mistake who the Paymaster is!

...

More mis-analysis continues and I won't bother to give blow-by-blow
response. Rather, to address some other important matters buried within:

HELL YES, we need a response to "social media" as it is now, and there are
TWO fruitful paths, but several steps more are helpful - here's one:

The most critical step: STEP OUT OF THE ARENA YOURSELF! Stop participating
on / in these "social media sites." ALL OF THEM. And always remember and
Tell Your Friends:

If it's free, YOU are the product. (Because you - or they - are!)

Now, the two keys (focused on the article's complaints):

1) Fund alternatives, such as is happening already, with people like Glenn
Greenwald and Tulsi Gabbard and others leading both a journalistic and
political way forward there, along with, ... IDK, a few million, I
think ... more already having joined in. If you don't know about these,
well, Rumble comes to mind, but it's only one of a good handful of good
choices. (I see that as another topic.)

2) CHANGE THE LAW... These Social Media Sites - ALL of them, including the
new ones - need to be put under the same rules as telephone companies;
they SHOULD BE "Common Carriers," and thus required, BY LAW, to treat
ALL EQUALLY. Then, we ALL have an equal voice, really.

That said, a KEY aspect of these businesses revenue is hype; they
amplify anything they think will keep people paying attention, as
that's how they make revenue - IT'S ABOUT EYEBALLS, REMEMBER?! And that
hyping is THE problem! If NOBODY got hyped, they'd still make plenty of
money, and so all that needs happen is to eliminate, BY LAW, the hyping
- we're all equal, remember! - as we also make them Common Carriers.

Is this easy? NO! Who is funding the campaigns?!

And THIS is why both voting behavior AND the Citizens United decision
are SO vital. (I wrote an NYT op-ed piece years ago maybe I can dig up
about this and email to the group, but after that decision, the
Supremes became a very inefficient dictatorship, but I digress.)

On to some other less-important but worthy points to bring up in the
piece:

>> Donald Trump's rise, [...]

Trump was, at the time, just as Michael Moore quipped, merely the most
convenient "human hand grenade" and "Molotov Cocktail" that could be
thrown at "a system that sole their lives from them." And, indeed, it did!
(That's possibly a different dialogue but the CAUSE is the same, the
avaricious nature of the ultra-rich!)

What has he done as elected?!

ONE thing I can cite and praise him for: He's the only U.S. President who
EVEN TRIED to end the war with North Korea, and Biden, of course, threw
that opportunity away because... Chorus, please?! YES, YOU GOT IT, the
ULTRA-RICH!

I'm sure I've missed something else he did that's worthwhile, but
overall... Yeah, he's supported (again, folks?!) YEAH! THE ULTRA RICH!

>> Americans need to have this discussion now — before the Censorship
>> Complex makes it impossible to do so.

There's no time like NOW, of course, and if you think about it, that's ALL
we have: Tomorrow never comes, and yesterday is GONE!

However, while life persists, hope springs eternal.

Regards,
Richard

--
Richard Troy

[Judy Young]

Excellent article Scott. Yes, we do need to discuss free speech while we still can.

Regarding the statement toward the end of the article about needing to discuss circumstances under which Big Tech should be allowed to censor speech, that's an important topic with various layers.

At one level, the article at the following link lists the areas of speech that are partially protected against government censorship depending on specifics of the speech. Each type of speech also has each social media platform's policy which you can see by putting the mouse over it.

https://www.freedomforum.org/free-speech-on-social-media/

The areas of partially protected speech are hate, obscenity, misinformation, and harassment. In the right hand column, there is an explanation of the parameters of the partial protection. For example, for hate speech, "The First Amendment protects hate speech from government censorship unless that speech incites or is likely to incite imminent lawless action."

Another layer to Big Tech censorship is who arbitrates? With government censorship, we can get non-profit organizations to file lawsuits. Even though lawsuits are expensive and take a lot of time, at least there is a remedy of using the court system as the arbiter. And even though the court system is fairly corrupt, once in a while there is a judge who will make the right decision like the judge who ruled that the FDA has to release the Pfizer clinical trial data instead of waiting 75 years to release the data.

Another layer to Big Tech censorship is a big picture issue. The framers of the constitution could not have foreseen Big Tech and its censorship and thus the protections we would need. The framers saw the importance of an independent press and wrote freedom of the press into the First Amendment. Not so with Big Tech. What we really need is for enough people to get passionate about this topic to create a movement for a constitutional amendment that does not allow Big Tech to infringe on speech in the same way that government is not allowed to infringe on speech. Of course, the obstacle here is that Congress is too bought and blackmailed to ever propose this type of constitutional amendment.

Free speech and censorship is a huge topic and one of the most important topics of our time. So let's talk about it as the article suggests!

Cheers,

Judy

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sf911truth" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf911truth+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/66528FAF-FE72-4DAD-8289-B3CBA1EBCDE8%40gmail.com.

[Lou Anne McKeefery]

Judy and Scott thanks for posting the article.

Judy an amendment to the fake constitution? From what I see the US is gone. The face diaper is our new dress code.

It's going to take a lot to save us from ourselves.

Lou Anne 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sf911truth/19444987.2939801.1679367999974%40mail.yahoo.com.