Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Leftists Argue Government Censorship is the Highest Form of Speech
Frontpagemagazine ^ | July 10, 2023 | Daniel Greenfield

Posted on 07/10/2023 7:11:54 AM PDT by SJackson

The Left will fight to the death for the right of the government to silence you.

When Judge Terry Doughty issued an injunction in Missouri v. Biden that banned the government from “specifically flagging content or posts on social-media platforms and/or forwarding such to social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression”, all hell broke loose.

Evelyn Douek, a Stanford law professor, formerly of the Knight First Amendment Institute, warned that preventing the government from colluding with corporations to censor citizens would have a “chilling effect on communication between the government and platforms.”

In traditional free speech jurisprudence, ‘chilling effects’ were inflicted by the government, but Douek is worried that free speech might have a chilling effect on government censorship. After advocating, in cases like Lamont v. Postmaster General, that any interference with speech, no matter how odious including, in the aforementioned Supreme Court case, asking recipients of Communist propaganda to affirmatively agree to receive it, entailed a ‘chilling effect’, liberals don’t want to chill the censors, instead they’re worried that civil rights will chill censorship.

Even though it’s the height of summer, chilling effects on censorship were on display.

Liberals who might have once worried about free speech now fret that the government will be inhibited from censoring free speech. According to CNN, “Legal experts say that the order is overly broad and scholars on online misinformation warned that it could have a chilling effect on the government’s efforts to curtail lies about public health emergencies and elections.”

Nina Jankowicz, Biden’s former disinformation czar, popped up to argue that,”it’ll have a chilling effect on government and academia, ensuring that officials and researchers think twice before trying to counter those spreading conspiracies and false information.”

The axis of concern had shifted from worrying that government action would inhibit free speech to agonizing that judicial interference would prevent the government from inhibiting free speech.

The existence of ‘chilling effects’ in free speech cases testified to the degree to which we protected free speech from even the faintest tinge of indirect discouragement. Now, lefty academics and experts want to not only reverse the polarities of free speech, but they are just as worried that any protection for free speech will interfere with government censorship.

Its new victims are not civilians who engage in political speech, but government censors.

To justify this inversion of civil rights, they have also inverted the concept of censorship so that the true form of free speech is to prevent others from speaking.

According to Leah Litman, a law professor at the University of Michigan, preventing the government from censoring citizens was… censorship.

Litman told NPR that the injunction “literally prevents the federal government from sending emails to social media companies about their content moderation policies or having meetings with social media companies about taking down speech and posts. And so that prevents speech, really important speech, from ever happening.”

The most important speech is government speech that suppresses the speech of the public.

If government censorship is speech, then any interference with government censorship is a violation of free speech. And the government must be allowed to censor everyone lest its really important speech be restrained from taking place. And then where would we be, except free?

Judge Terry Doughty was attacked by pro-censorship leftists for invoking George Orwell’s 1984 and yet that same faction insists on ‘literally’ arguing that censorship is speech.

Crying censorship has become the last resort of censors who demand the right to censor.

When Gov. Ron DeSantis and other governors signed laws barring Big Tech monopolies from deplatforming candidates for public office, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, whose members include Amazon, Google and Facebook, sued in the name of free speech.

“We are bringing this suit to safeguard the industry’s free speech,” CCIA boss Matt Schruers claimed. “A digital service that declines to host harmful content is exercising its own First Amendment rights.”

“Section 7 does not chill speech; if anything, it chills censorship,” the Fifth Circuit court replied.

“We reject the Platforms’ efforts to reframe their censorship as speech. It is undisputed that the Platforms want to eliminate speech—not promote or protect it. And no amount of doctrinal gymnastics can turn the First Amendment’s protections for free speech into protections for free censoring.” But that hasn’t stopped the totalitarian gymnastics from going forward.

After arguing that censorship by some of the biggest companies in the world was really speech, lefty legal scholars are arguing that government censorship is free speech, and that when judges prevent the government from censoring, the government’s speech is being violated.

The official Biden administration position is that it is entitled to censor in the event of emergencies.

“We’re not going to apologize for promoting responsible actions to protect public health, safety and security when confronted by challenges like a deadly pandemic or foreign attacks on our elections,” Sharon Yang, a White House spokeswoman, argued.

These deadly challenges and foreign attacks included a video mocking Jill Biden and a Twitter account impersonating Biden’s granddaughter. Biden officials insisted on having these and many other posts, accounts and materials that they disliked taken down.

Emergencies have never been anything other than an excuse for a broad censorship scheme.

Liberals have abandoned even the pretense of caring about free speech. Laurence Tribe, a lefty constitutional law professor, co-authored an op-ed complaining that the injunction “seems to maintain that the government cannot even politely ask companies not to publish verifiable misinformation.”

What would Tribe’s view be on the Nixon administration “politely” asking the media not to spread lies about the Vietnam War, the Reagan administration “politely” asking the media not to lie about the War on Drugs, and the Bush administration “politely” asking the media not to lie about the War on Terror? Any such suggestions, no matter how mild, were greeted with rabid rage.

“The First Amendment certainly doesn’t prevent them from merely asking,” Tribe contends, and preventing the government from doing so “would turn the Constitution’s protection of free expression in an open society into an obstacle course for some of the most valuable exchanges of information and ideas we can imagine.” The most valuable exchanges of ideas apparently involve asking social media monopolies to take down content mocking the president.

Lefty legal scholars keep arguing that government censorship is the highest form of speech.

After abandoning free speech, lefty legal scholars now celebrate the virtues of censorship in the glowing language once used for promoting reverence for a free exchange of ideas. Forget an open society, a truly valuable exchange of ideas consists of government officials telling huge corporations whom to censor this morning.

None of this is remarkable when you go back to the origins of lefty support for free speech.

In 1934, Roger Nash Baldwin, Co-Founder and Executive Director of the ACLU, quite clearly explained why he was fighting for civil liberties. “I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which worker’s rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental. When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever.”

The American Left believes it has gained enough power that it no longer sees any value in maintaining protections for free speech, at least at a federal level, and has publicly switched its enthusiasm from speech to censorship. It now lovingly speaks of the valuable “speech” of government censors and of the ‘chilling effects’ of extremist judges who interfere with them.

There are still select conservative enclaves where the Left pretends to care about free speech. Should parents persuade a middle school library to pull a work of hard core LGBTQ pornography off the shelves, the Left will describe this as an attack on the First Amendment. But otherwise, freedom of speech has been buried in the same unmarked grave as freedom of religion with the bulk of the First Amendment soon set to join the Second Amendment.

Censorship is becoming speech and speech is becoming censorship. The real threat to civil liberties comes from people interfering with the speech of censors telling them to “shut up”.

In a world where governments have rights and people have none, the right to censor is the only right. And if they disagree with you, liberals will fight to the death for the right of the government to silence you.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: censorship; civilrights; freespeech; internet; socialmedia; tyranny
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

1 posted on 07/10/2023 7:11:54 AM PDT by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SJackson

“Judge Terry Doughty was attacked by pro-censorship leftists for invoking George Orwell’s 1984 and yet that same faction insists on ‘literally’ arguing that censorship is speech.”

They haven’t yet gotten around to reversing the meaning of the word “Orwellian”, but I expect that they will soon. It’s what they do.


2 posted on 07/10/2023 7:15:51 AM PDT by rightwingcrazy (;-,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

BTTT


3 posted on 07/10/2023 7:18:13 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Let them secede from the Union, then. Run their own little fiefdom their own little way, with tranny athletes trouncing real women, then ogling them in the locker room, sex change operations on demand, censorship, no guns, abortions on demand, and no academic standards whatever. Leave the normal people alone.


4 posted on 07/10/2023 7:21:05 AM PDT by Eleutheria5 (Every Goliath has his David. Child in need of a CGM system. https://gofund.me/6452dbf1. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

The President and the executive agencies are funded by Congress and therefore they should not seek to censor.

Congress cannot buy a Amendment I billy club.


5 posted on 07/10/2023 7:28:12 AM PDT by Brian Griffin (ARTICLE I SECTION 2....The President...may require the opinion, in writing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5

Maybe an independent ‘city state’ constitutional amendment is needed.


6 posted on 07/10/2023 7:32:04 AM PDT by Brian Griffin (ARTICLE I SECTION 2....The President...may require the opinion, in writing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

liberals will fight to the death for the right of the government to silence you.


Think about that?

If I shake you awake in the middle of the night and ask you what you are fighting for, after you reach for your gun, what do you tell me?

Our Founding Fathers could answer that questin.


7 posted on 07/10/2023 7:42:43 AM PDT by PeterPrinciple (Thinking Caps are no longer being issued but there must be a warehouse full of them somewhere.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

One could easily argue that, government censure of free speech is the highers form of law breaking.

One could go on to argue that a government that knowingly and intentionally breaks the law, is a government that needs to be thrown out of power and forbidden from existing at all.


8 posted on 07/10/2023 7:58:50 AM PDT by adorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eleutheria5
No need, they have already taken over. Via our public educational system, Liberals, Communists, and the rest of the Post Modernists run our country and our lives.

We are willingly send our children to public schools. We willingly shop and purchase products from these folks. We knowingly accept their Post Modernists theories. We as a group willingly vote and elect these people because we disagree with something our party candidate may believe, but everything else is acceptable.

So what do we do? Do we speak out when confronted with the crap these folks spew? Do we remove our children, grandchildren, and great children from public schools? Do we elect people that support of most of beliefs instead of allowing those that support none of our beliefs?

The answer to the above questions is mainly “NO”.

What can we do? Remove your younger children from public schools. Direct your older children to Vocational schools instead of college. Public education is not working in the USA.

Limit your purchases to companies that support your way of life. You cannot stop doing business with all companies that promote the Post Modernists, but you can limit it. Do business with locals that believe as you.

Find a Church that isn't “woke”. Most Christian churches are woke in America. I was shocked when after 10 years of living in the Middle East to find how far away from the Bible most churches have become. Pastors that preached from the book of I-Say-A, instead of the Holy Bible.

Once again, “They” don't need to secede because they are in control and run every aspect our lives. It is “we” that need to act. Writing on Free Republic or other mediums is not going to work. They control all social media and the mainstream media. We need to find like-minded folks and discuss these issues and possible solutions.

I miss America. I often think I went to sleep and woke up to this mess. Truthfully, that is what I have done. What about you?>

9 posted on 07/10/2023 8:06:01 AM PDT by RowdyRoo (There only three types of people, those that can count and those that can't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RowdyRoo

Orwell and Rand were right.


10 posted on 07/10/2023 8:09:43 AM PDT by Night Hides Not (Remember the Alamo! Remember Goliad! Remember Gonzales! Come and Take It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Laurence Tribe, a lefty constitutional law professor, co-authored an op-ed complaining that the injunction “seems to maintain that the government cannot even politely ask companies not to publish verifiable misinformation.”

I can see fourteen alphabet agencies standing outside the CEOs of every social media company with brass knuckles and billy clubs (popping them in their other, open hand) while Pretendent Biden says, "This sure is a nice place you got here and those are some nice teeth you have. OH! On a completely unrelated note, can you see to it that article about Hunter is not allowed to remain on your platform?"

Nothing nefarious or anything like that...just "politely" asking for a favor that DIRECTLY OFFENDS THE VERY CORE OF THE 1ST AMENDMENT while wielding the power to crush the entire company or maybe just a few select corporate officers, to send a signal!!

This whole "politely asking" by an administration that has a position of authority and power is no different than a teacher just "politely asking" their young pupil to engage in illicit sex! Or a cop just "politely asking" for a "favor" to avoid getting a ticket or being arrested! Do these professors really believe that the position of authority would have no bearing on the decisions and actions of the company?!?
11 posted on 07/10/2023 8:13:21 AM PDT by ExTxMarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: adorno
One could easily argue that, government censure of free speech is the highers form of law breaking.

That would have been the Founders position

12 posted on 07/10/2023 8:13:30 AM PDT by SJackson (he who controls the schools, controls the world, 1870s France)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

.


13 posted on 07/10/2023 9:23:36 AM PDT by sauropod (Sun Tzu: “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Night Hides Not

Sadly, most Conservatives have been beaten into submission.


14 posted on 07/10/2023 9:25:14 AM PDT by RowdyRoo (There only three types of people, those that can count and those that can't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple
If I shake you awake in the middle of the night and ask you what you are fighting for,

And it's 1, 2, 3,
What are we fighting for?
Don't ask me I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam Granada Panama Kuwait Iraq Bosnia Kosovo Afghanistan Somalia Yemen Libya Syria Uganda Niger
15 posted on 07/10/2023 9:50:10 AM PDT by Colinsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Colinsky

Don’t ask me I don’t give a damn,


and there in lies the problem in our fight.


16 posted on 07/10/2023 10:03:03 AM PDT by PeterPrinciple (Thinking Caps are no longer being issued but there must be a warehouse full of them somewhere.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Huh. I can just hear LtCol. Oliver North “politely” asking the media not to lie about Iran-Contra.


17 posted on 07/10/2023 10:07:10 AM PDT by HKMk23 (https://youtu.be/LTseTg48568)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

“The most important speech is government speech that suppresses the speech of the public.”

^^^THIS^^^ is the rotten core of the left/govt position.


18 posted on 07/10/2023 10:09:08 AM PDT by HKMk23 (https://youtu.be/LTseTg48568)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExTxMarine
100% right. Government does not exercise free speech. Citizens do that. Governments exercise powers, such as stomping on free speech, which they are now, again, told they cannot do.

Someone could ask Larry Tribe if it is ok for the government to ask the NYT to stop publishing misinformation. We all know what he would say.

19 posted on 07/10/2023 10:30:43 AM PDT by TimSkalaBim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RowdyRoo
Sadly, most Conservatives have been beaten into submission.

It could be that every so often, one needs to acquire some new friends. . .

20 posted on 07/10/2023 10:52:03 AM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson