by Chris Black
When this first started in 2017, after Trump’s election, they said that saying mean things on the internet would cause people to kill themselves.
Seriously, that was the argument. You can look it up.
Then you got the “election meddling” and “Covid disinformation.”
We always hear about “hate speech,” but frankly, that hasn’t ever really been the main driver of censorship.
It is all of these other weird things, which are much more vague and confusing. This is partially because if the rules were “just don’t say nigger,” you wouldn’t really be able to censor all that much.
The current explanations for censorship allow wide swaths of speech to be censored without specific explanation.
MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuade argued Monday that the United States’ “deep commitment to free speech” makes Americans uniquely susceptible to disinformation campaigns.
McQuade, a University of Michigan law professor, went on “The Rachel Maddow Show” to promote her new book, “Attack from Within: How Disinformation is Sabotaging America.” She said her “goal” with the book was to spark a “national conversation about truth and our commitment to it.”
All limits on speech are censorship.
MSNBC’s Barbara McQuade: “Our First Amendment … makes us vulnerable to claims that anything we try to do to regulate speech is censorship.” pic.twitter.com/MvoxGQr2yz
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) February 29, 2024
The only forms of speech that are legally banned are actionable and imminent threats, libel, and (apparently) “harassment.” There are no limits on political speech, and there can’t be without repealing the First Amendment.
Of course, it doesn’t matter, because the government can force internet companies to censor.
Then, if people try to organize publicly, the government can send Antifa to attack you and then arrest you for having the sh*t beaten out of you by hired government thugs.
No one cares about freedom of speech or thinks it’s a “cherished right.” That is just a lie.
The Republicans, including Josh Hawley, have been calling for mass censorship to protect the interests of Israel.
There is bipartisan support for total information control, there is just some disagreement about which information to control.