We live in a time when there’s much discussion about misinformation and disinformation. We’ve been told that social media works to protect us from information that can lead us astray, by removing this kind of material; their actions are essentially censoring information. The government in particular tells us that it is protecting us from data that could harm us, that
could be dangerous, by making "suggestions" to social media. But we are finally realizing that their overstepping and abuse of power is putting our First Amendment rights in jeopardy.
The language of the First Amendment is pretty straightforward, but over the decades plenty of people have “interpreted” the amendment to satisfy a certain agenda.
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.
Shutting Down Free Speech
The U.S. has actually had many attacks on free speech throughout our history, and one of the most glaring abuses was when then President John Adams enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts :
The Alien and Sedition Acts were a series of four laws passed by the U.S. Congress in 1798 during the administration of President John Adams amid widespread fear that a foreign war against France was imminent. The laws—which remain controversial to this day—restricted the activities of foreign residents in the country and limited freedom of speech and of the press, particularly when it was critical of the president or the government. Most, but not all, of the laws have expired or been repealed over the years.
Over the years, many more attempts were made to silence unpopular views, or views that some people believed might cause harm. Jonathan Turley, a professor at Georgetown University, has written substantially about these actions in his book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.
Today, we are wrestling with maintaining the First Amendment and also offering protection to our citizenry. Two of the most glaring battles were regarding social media information. The first was Covid-19 censorship, while the second was Hunter Biden laptop disinformation. Covid 19 censorship was an effort to stop information contradicting data that the federal government was disbursing. The Hunter Biden Laptop suppression was disinformation, intentionally suggesting that the laptop was a tool of Russian disinformation.
Covid-19 Misinformation
The federal government feared that people would be dissuaded from taking the Covid-19 vaccine or from lockdowns, if they were aware of information that contradicted the government’s stand. One of the most vehement attacks was made on Jay Battacharya, a renowned epidemiologist at Stanford, who recommended different criteria be used for administering the vaccine and for lockdowns. Since he had done a study on these issues, he spoke out about the government modifying its stance, rather than insist on censoring the data that he had collected. He co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration to explain his position:
Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.
Unfortunately, the government ignored his pleas, instituted draconian lockdowns and expected all citizens to comply. Today, almost 1,000,000 people have signed the Declaration. This is only one example of the censorship that took place to prevent “misinformation.” Many other highly respected medical professionals were banned by the government in their efforts to provide contrary information.
Letter from the Intelligence Community
Rather than belabor the political intentions of this incident, I simply want to outline the incident and explain the egregious behavior by retired intelligence officials. In order to stop information about a laptop owned by Hunter Biden, that might have implicated him with negative information about his father if it became public, 51 retired intelligence officials, some at the highest levels, insisted the laptop had only disinformation:
The letter begins by introducing the credibility and experience of its co-signatories before stating that their concern about how ‘the damage that foreign interference in our politics can do to our democracy’ had led them to consider ‘that the arrival on the US political scene of emails purportedly belonging to Vice President Biden's son Hunter... has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.’
Before reasoning the position in analytical detail, the letter adds: 'If we are right, this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this election, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this.'
Again, although the letter does not conclude decisively that the laptop stories were part of a disinformation campaign, the weight of its argument, the inference that its conclusions may be ‘right; and the aforementioned reputation of its co-signatories, confidently indicated the view that the laptop was most likely a disinformation tool.
In just the last few weeks, Mark Zuckerberg admitted that the government had influenced him to not publish the laptop story. They had warned him in advance that some Russian disinformation might show up. When the laptop story appeared, Meta demoted the post (held it back) and sent it to fact checkers. Meanwhile, the moment was lost and the letter from the retired intelligence personnel was in the public domain.
Again, this fits the definition of disinformation—representatives of the federal government intentionally misled the public by censoring a post. To this day, many people think that the letter was legitimate.
Violations of the First Amendment
For those who might point to Oliver Wendell Holmes statement about “not calling out fire in a crowded theater” as a rejection of the abuse of free speech, they neglect to include his entire comment: falsely calling out “fire” in a crowded theater. The former is often referred to as an excuse that is used to curtail free speech.
But unless false statements are made, the First Amendment is intended to protect all of us from the government’s overstepping its power.
Jonathan Turley explains in his aforementioned book why this protection is so key to our country:
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
Convention of States, through an Article V convention, intends to prevent the federal government from repeatedly overstepping its authority. The propensity to interfere with our freedoms and rights must be stopped. Legislators will not take the necessary steps on their own; they are too accustomed to wielding a power that is not theirs. Join us at COS as we fight for the freedoms of our country and stop federal censorship and control.
