We are in the midst of a great war in this country — a war on freedom of speech. The First Amendment states:
“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.”
Historically, the Supreme Court has a steady record of broadening the definition of “free speech” by prohibiting not only Congress but states and municipalities and in some cases even corporations from denying free speech to citizens. This is a good thing.
Now, the battle lines are being drawn, but they are fractal in nature — fractal in the sense that there are so many twists and turns of the line between truth and falsehood that it’s hard to know what’s on which side.
Of course, we all agree that there is information that is correct, and information that is incorrect. The problem is that we can’t always agree on which is which, so we tend to look towards authorities to tell us.
And there’s the rub. Not only are the authorities all too willing to tell us what is truth and what is fiction, they are also willing to make sure that nothing they consider fiction can even be heard or read or seen by anyone. Problem solved — only the ‘truth’ survives. Right?
Hmmm…. Whose truth? And how do we know it’s true, if it’s never been subjected to scrutiny, criticism and argument? The answer is — we don’t. Nor do we know, before a court trial has begun, whether the defendant is guilty or not.
And, to be completely honest, we don’t even know after the jury has spoken! After all, there are numerous cases of wrongful conviction every year. All we can say about this is that it’s our best attempt at letting two sides present their case, and having responsible, disinterested, impartial citizens state their opinion of the evidence for and against.
Imagine a jury trial in which the prosecuting attorney, in pressed blue suit, strides back and forth before the court, presenting his case with polished oration and gestures. After that the defense attorney — shackled, gagged and hooded — is asked to respond. His mumbled sounds, hobbled gait and fettered gestures will hardly serve to argue his case, and the defendant will surely be found guilty. Even worse, suppose the defendant is tried in absentia, even though the defendant was in a cell only yards away.
This is exactly what happens when we stifle free speech. Maybe the side that gets to speak actually does have the truth on its side, and maybe it doesn’t. But we’ll never know, because we can’t hear the other side. That’s a high price to pay for the peace of mind gained by knowing that someone else has made the decision for us.
And this is also exactly what is happening with Twitter and Facebook today. Not only that, but the powers that be are also going after the alternatives to those platforms — parler was shut down, and now according to the New York Times the next targets are things like telegram and signal.
A population that is so ignorant, ill-trained and sheep-like that it cannot stand to hear other opinions or take the time to separate the wheat from the bulldada on the internet is going to find itself at the mercy of those who pretend to be better qualified to do it for them. And thus they will give up their final freedom — the freedom to think for themselves.
Why does big tech want to shut these down? I don’t think it’s because of competition — I think it’s because they want to stifle free speech. The difference between not listening to me and not letting me speak is like the difference between freedom and slavery. There’s a very good reason that the right to free speech is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. We would do well to remember that these days.
The Saint
“Imagine you come upon a house painted brown. What color would you say the house was?”
“Why brown, of course.”
“But what if I came upon it from the other side, and found it to be white?”
“That would be absurd. Who would paint a house two colors?”
He ignored my question. “You say it’s brown, and I say it’s white. Who’s right?”
“We’re both right.”
“Non,” he said. “We’re both wrong. The house isn’t brown or white. It’s both. You and I only see one side. But that doesn’t mean the other side doesn’t exist. To not see the whole is to not see the truth.”
― Megan Chance, The Spiritualist