The New Censors: Polls Shows Almost Half Of Americans Favor Government Censoring "Misinformation"
The New Censors: Polls Shows Almost Half Of Americans Favor Government Censoring "Misinformation"
BY TYLER DURDEN SUNDAY, AUG 22, 2021 - 05:15 PM Authored by Jonathan Turley,
We recently discussed the rise
of a generation of censors as young people embrace the role of government and
corporate censorship. The erosion of free speech
rights is manifest in a chilling poll from the Pew Research Center that
shows a huge jump in favor of censorship among citizens with almost half now
supporting the government barring “misinformation.” The shift is almost
entirely among Democrats who (like Democratic
leaders) now overwhelming favor fewer free speech protections and
more government control over speech.
The poll shows 48 percent of survey respondents supporting government censorship of misinformation as compared to 39 percent in 2018.
Republicans have become more protective of free speech but the
shift among Democratic voters is startling. In 2018, just 40 percent of
Democrats supported censorship by the government and Big Tech. It is now 65
percent.
The poll
reflects the move among Democratic politicians for years in calling for
censorship. We previously discussed the
unrelenting drumbeat of censorship on the Internet from Democratic leaders,
including President-elect Joe Biden.
As previously discussed the hearing with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey
who followed up his apology for censoring the Hunter Biden story but pledging
more censorship. One of the most chilling moments came from Delaware Senator
Chris Coons who demonstrated the very essence of the “slippery slope” danger.
Dorsey: Well, misleading information, as you are aware, is a
large problem. It’s hard to define it completely and cohesively. We wanted to
scope our approach to start to focus on the highest severity of harm. We
focused on three areas, manipulated media, which you mentioned, civic integrity
around the election, specifically in public health, specifically around COVID.
We wanted to make sure that our resources that we have the greatest impact on
where we believe the greatest severity of harm is going to be. Our policies are
living documents. They will evolve. We will add to them, but we thought it important
that we focus our energies and prioritize the work as much as we could.
Coons: Well, Mr. Dorsey, I’ll close with this. I cannot think of
a greater harm than climate change, which is transforming literally our planet
and causing harm to our entire world. I think we’re experiencing significant
harm as we speak. I recognize the pandemic and misinformation about COVID-19,
manipulated media also cause harm, but I’d urge you to reconsider that because
helping to disseminate climate denialism, in my view, further facilitates and
accelerates one of the greatest existential threats to our world. So thank you
to both of our witnesses.
Notably, Dorsey starts with the same argument made by free
speech advocates: “Well, misleading information, as you are aware, is a large
problem. It’s hard to define it completely and cohesively.” However, instead of
then raising concerns over censoring views and comments on the basis for such
an amorphous category, Coons pressed for an expansion of the categories of
censored material to prevent people from sharing any views that he considers
“climate denialism”
There is, of course, a wide array of views that different people
or different groups would declare “harmful.” Indeed, Connecticut Senator
Richard Blumenthal seemed to take the opposite meaning from Twitter admitting
that it was wrong to censor the Biden story. Blumenthal said that he was
“concerned that both of your companies are, in fact, backsliding or
retrenching, that you are failing to take action against dangerous disinformation.”
Accordingly, he demanded an answer to this question:
“Will you commit to the same kind of robust content modification
playbook in this coming election, including fact checking, labeling, reducing
the spread of misinformation, and other steps, even for politicians in the
runoff elections ahead?”
“Robust
content modification” has a certain Orwellian feel to it. It is not content
modification. It is censorship.
This call has now been picked up by academics and members of the
media. Faculty and editors are now actively supporting modern
versions of book-burning with blacklists and bans for those
with opposing political views. Columbia Journalism School Dean Steve Coll has denounced the
“weaponization” of free speech, which appears to be the use of free
speech by those on the right. So the dean of one of the premier journalism
schools now supports censorship.
Free
speech advocates are facing a generational shift that is
now being reflected in our law schools, where free speech principles were once
a touchstone of the rule of law. As millions of students are taught
that free speech is a threat and that “China is right”
about censorship, these figures are shaping a new society in their
own intolerant images.
Comments
Post a Comment