Aside from the commonsense justification of a free press as the fountain for the free exchange of ideas subjected to the court of public opinion, the original defense of freedom of the press was as the only effective instrument to root out "bad ministers"-- that is, to root out corruption among individuals or groups representing the government.
The ongoing attack on free speech is supposedly to prevent mis-mal-disinformation from harming the body politic, but no greater harm can come to that body than of the government directing what may or may not be said, in order to prevent criticism of its actions and statements. Such criticism challenges tyranny in all its forms and is the essential formula for a free society.
There's no difference today from yesteryear with regards to the magnitude of conspiracy theories or outlandish accusations circulating among the public mind, except for the key difference that largely through government actions those accusations or theories are now deemed to be appropriate objects for thought control, thereby robbing the people of their rightful court of public opinion while allowing for the cloaking of nefarious backroom deals that threaten the very foundation for liberty. This attempt to silence Americans is an insidious and Orwellian insistence that the public thinking mind is a threat to a truly free society; if it succeeds, it's no exaggeration to say it would be the downfall of the freedom so many gave their last defending.
Thank you for this update. I was a member of the ACLU for 40+ years, but several years ago I just quit, when it became sickenly obvious that it had become just another advocacy group, and NOT for civil liberties. It's a relief to know that the New Civil Liberties Alliance has arisen to carry the torch.
Thanks for sharing. Shameful that so much of the legal profession and media seem to be sitting this one out. Does the courtās doctrine against āprior restraintā come into this at all?
According to Cato, the Court should āmake clearā that First Amendment violations only occur when āinteractions between the government and digital services regarding displayed content rise to the level of coercion.ā Removal of federal funding or the threat of removal of funding from third party organizations obviously constitutes coercion. Likewise, the threat of legislation that would remove protections from digital services, e.g. Section 230, also rises to the level of coercion.
Aside from the commonsense justification of a free press as the fountain for the free exchange of ideas subjected to the court of public opinion, the original defense of freedom of the press was as the only effective instrument to root out "bad ministers"-- that is, to root out corruption among individuals or groups representing the government.
The ongoing attack on free speech is supposedly to prevent mis-mal-disinformation from harming the body politic, but no greater harm can come to that body than of the government directing what may or may not be said, in order to prevent criticism of its actions and statements. Such criticism challenges tyranny in all its forms and is the essential formula for a free society.
There's no difference today from yesteryear with regards to the magnitude of conspiracy theories or outlandish accusations circulating among the public mind, except for the key difference that largely through government actions those accusations or theories are now deemed to be appropriate objects for thought control, thereby robbing the people of their rightful court of public opinion while allowing for the cloaking of nefarious backroom deals that threaten the very foundation for liberty. This attempt to silence Americans is an insidious and Orwellian insistence that the public thinking mind is a threat to a truly free society; if it succeeds, it's no exaggeration to say it would be the downfall of the freedom so many gave their last defending.
This must not stand.
Thank you for this update. I was a member of the ACLU for 40+ years, but several years ago I just quit, when it became sickenly obvious that it had become just another advocacy group, and NOT for civil liberties. It's a relief to know that the New Civil Liberties Alliance has arisen to carry the torch.
Thanks for sharing. Shameful that so much of the legal profession and media seem to be sitting this one out. Does the courtās doctrine against āprior restraintā come into this at all?
According to Cato, the Court should āmake clearā that First Amendment violations only occur when āinteractions between the government and digital services regarding displayed content rise to the level of coercion.ā Removal of federal funding or the threat of removal of funding from third party organizations obviously constitutes coercion. Likewise, the threat of legislation that would remove protections from digital services, e.g. Section 230, also rises to the level of coercion.