According to a recent Pew Research Center poll, more Americans want the government and big tech to restrict “misinformation” online even if that means limiting individual liberties. This may not seem like a big deal because I think most of us say we value the truth. We also know that when any of us believe false information that can have significant and negative consequences.
So, in a perfect world, the internet would be devoid of any “misinformation” or “disinformation,” and this would be done without encroaching on anyone’s 1st Amendment rights. But this perfect world doesn’t exist, and we have to choose either government censorship that curtails our rights or freedom and false information. We also have to be honest about what government censorship actually costs.
Here’s why I think the cost of government censorship online is too high:
1. The government will inevitably promote its own interests through censorship, not the truth.
Some may call me cynical, but I am convinced that almost every politician and public official who say that they want to rid the internet of false information really want to erase any criticism of themselves or their policies. It’s human nature to believe one is right and to be resistant to anyone and anything that says otherwise. So, let’s be honest. If we could silence any public criticism of ourselves, then many of us would do so. And if you think otherwise, then you probably haven’t been called out on the internet.
Even if I’m wrong about the state’s motivation in removing misinformation from online platforms, those in government will eventually succumb to promoting their own interests at the expense of the truth. Many of our “public servants” already do (see Can We Handle the Truth? and Systemic Hypocrisy). And this is nothing new. Remember Bill Clinton’s eloquent defense during his impeachment hearing, “It depends on what your definition of the word “is” is.” Let’s not be in denial about human nature and the effects of power.
2. Free speech is necessary to sustain our republic and fend off tyranny.
Our founders knew that free speech, which must include dissent, is necessary to keep the state in check and accountable to the people. There have been times in American history when those in power believed in was in their best interest to censor their detractors and criminalize criticism. The most well-known examples of this are President Adams’ Sedition Act of 1798 and President Wilson’s Sedition Act of 1917. Today, most of us see these acts for what they were- partisan power plays. Do we really think government censorship of what our elected leaders see as “false information” will be any different today?
What’s more, we no longer have a robust physical space in which members of American public can engage with each other or a sizable, diverse newspaper industry that solely relies on physically printed papers. The internet has become the site of both public discourse and news dissemination. So, if the government has the power to censor online activity at its own discretion, it will inevitably limit our 1st Amendment rights. According to the Pew poll, the Americans who support such government intervention are okay with that. I’m definitely not because even the speech I detest is necessary for a truly free society.
First, who’s to say which speech is valuable or not? Think about all of the innovations and policies that we wouldn’t have if it weren’t for the right to dissent. And consider that Jackson and the ante-bellum Democrat Party labeled Abolitionist pamphlets as hate speech because they feared a slave revolt. We have to put up with the ridiculous and even offensive speech because we don’t have the benefit of hindsight, so we cannot know which new ideas are worth protecting.
Secondly, the right to a free press is a right given to all Americans, not just the professional press. And as I said before, the press, professional and amateur, operates largely online. So, why should we resist any government intrusion of the free press? Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black said it best.
According to Black, “The government’s power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained free press can effectively expose deception in government.”
3. Freedom requires responsibility, and relegating responsibilities to the government makes it more powerful and its citizens more controlled.
We live in an age in which everyone demands that others must capitulate to a growing list of rights, but very few talk about who should bear the consequences of those rights. While I’m against criminalizing almost all speech (with exceptions for libel, slander, and explicit threats) and vehemently oppose cancel culture, we are still responsible for what we say and what we choose to believe.
When we all have the same rights of free expression (which we should), then we have to think for ourselves and not believe something just because it’s on the internet. Learn to think for yourself, challenge ideas (even mine!), and civilly engage in debates of the day with both like-minded and other-minded people who also want to discuss ideas instead of exchange insults.
And you’re going to be offended, probably more than once. Sometimes we’re offended because we can’t stand an idea, and sometimes someone says something heinous. This is the price of free speech. I would hope that instead of asking the government to think for us or save us from the horrible trolls online that we would buck up, buttercup!
Be resilient. Don’t respond to those who rely on personal attacks in place of substantive arguments. And if you can’t stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen, but don’t shut down the restaurant. We should go after cyberbullies and predators, no doubt, but something tells me that’s not the kind of “false information” the government wants to censor.
I know being offended online (or offline) can be… well, there are no words. I’ve been mischaracterized, lied about, and canceled, but I would not eliminate someone else’s right to say what they want because of this. I put on my big girl pants and move on because I’m an adult who doesn’t need the government to protect my feelings. And I’ve learned to think for myself, too.
In Conclusion
If we continue to relinquish our rights to the government for convenience, safety, efficacy, or because we no longer want to bear the burden of responsibility we are compliant in the creation of what will become a tyrannical state. Is this what we want to pass on to our children? Is that what the Americans who came before us hoped their sacrifices would enable?
Let us not forget that rights relinquished are difficult to reclaim. Do you think I’m overblowing this? Then I recommend that you watch the Star Wars prequels (and medicate with large doses of sugar and popcorn when Anakin starts talking about the sand).
Stay tuned for a sequel to this post titled “Big Tech Can’t Save Us Part 2: Dissent by any other name is disinformation” coming soon!
Subscribe for free to get all new Modest Proposals posts hot off the press!