Editor’s note: My dear readers, Here’s yet another dandy short essay from my much appreciated Facebook friend, fellow thinker, and prolific writer, Patricia Reed. Once again, pointing out how important it is to possess the ability and/or desire to seek the truth… Over and above simply trusting “the narrative” as presented to us by the media and/or government. A narrative that has been woefully inaccurate and destructive to our society. One of the most damaging results of this campaign to control what you think is the division of the people of this once great nation. Almost as if it were intentional. Here’s Patsy:
Have you noticed that the folks who practice censorship (by any name, such as “anti-disinformation”) never explicitly make the case for censorship—especially not in any context which includes the arguments against censorship? They could at least address those arguments, if only to then sweep them out of the way.
Instead, they pretend that no arguments against censorship even exist. They act as if the case for censorship is so overwhelming as to be self-evident... thus removing any burden of proof from themselves.
To the extent that they make even a weak gesture in the direction of justifying censorship, it usually boils down to one of four things.
Because Trump.
Because COVID.
Because Russians.
Because internet.
Let's look briefly at these. First... “because Trump.” This is the argument or assumption that because Trump is such a monster in human form, such an unprecedented danger to Our Democracy, such an existential threat to all that is good and holy.... that he must be stopped by Any Means Necessary.
Therefore, if we have to censor any fact or reality that might increase his support, so be it. If, by the same token, we have to manufacture—and protect from question—any myth that might decrease his support, so be it.
Wow. Just Wow.
Moving right along... the second implied justification for censorship is “Because COVID”. This is the explicit or implicit claim or assumption that COVID was such an unprecedentedly lethal virus—almost an existential threat-- that frills like the First Amendment were a luxury that we could not afford.
The only thing wrong with that... well, not the only thing but the biggest thing... was that the COVID virus was not actually as lethal to the population at large, as we were led to believe. The virus killed mostly old people, and even those “seniors” stood an excellent chance of surviving-- even if nothing was done (actually, they had a better chance if nothing was done).
Children, young people, even middle-aged people... were at low risk. In fact, those cohorts would actually have done better had the supposedly risky sources of information been listened to more, and the supposedly trust-worthy sources listened to less!
The third “justification” for censorship is the danger posed by international bad actors, most notably Russia. In fact, mostly Russia. (It is not clear why anti-disinformation efforts focus so heavily on Russia, to the point that other international bad actors like China and Iran are barely footnotes.)
But even if “anti-disinformation” experts are correct regarding a unique threat from Russia, that would not explain why a brand-new anti-disinformation effort is needed now.... especially given that we've been competing with Russia for seventy-plus years now-- quite successfully. What has changed?
Fourth, it is claimed that the internet provides to untrustworthy providers of information, a chance to get bad information out to the public with extra-ordinary speed ...which cannot always be matched by larger, slower, possibly more careful entities. Thus, less trust-worthy sources get to plant their narratives in people's minds first, and that initial advantage is hard to overcome.
There may be a grain of truth in this, but I do not find it sufficiently convincing to justify tossing the First Amendment baby out with the questionable sources? bath water. In any case, the anti-disinformation players increasingly display impressive nimbleness of their own.
Finally, NPR's new CEO Katherina Maher, the reigning “Queen of Woke”, has come up with a new wrinkle in censorship apologetics: She claims that it's often impossible to determine ultimate truth or falsehood, because different people have different truths! (A post-modernist aticle of faith.)
However, it is possible (she says) to weed out obviously unworthy candidates for inclusion in a menu of acceptable narratives... which can then be presented to all seekers of truth, or of reasonable facsimiles thereof. How wonderful! TheTrusted Sources do the hard part for us-- separating the wheat from the chaff!
Maher's “solution” is too clever by half. It places enormous power in the hands of cultural guardians-- and cultural guardians have had a terrible track record lately.
The “guardians” of Our Democracy were massively inaccurate—and dreadful bullies-- about almost every important aspect of the COVID pandemic, for example. If a doctor dissented from The Correct Narrative, s/he would disappear from social media immediately, and discover that even their Wikipedia bio had been changed (for the worse) within days of their apostasy!
No... better to just let all narratives duke it out, and may the best narrative win in a fair fight. Let's go back to “letting 'er rip” where discussion of important public issues is concerned... and let chips fall where they may.
Let freedom ring!
Editor’s note: Our founders engaged in a monumental battle of ideas in order to bring this country into being. Pitting the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists against each other. A lot has been written about this and it was a battle that all voters should be familiar with. Both factions had some pretty good ideas regarding setting up an enduring republican government “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. The key point to this is the exchange of ideas (without censorship) and its importance to the founding of the country. Over the last 150 years, we’ve see that concept erode into a government of special interests, for special interests, and by special interests. With an all too powerful media which seems to have lost its moral compass. What could go wrong? You just need to wake up and look around. Pay very close attention, with a skeptic’s eye, to those who say this or that “is a threat to our democracy”. Settle for nothing but the truth.