Censorship Unleashed

Updated on January 17, 2021 in General Stuff
5 on January 15, 2021

Maybe of minor interest but a blog site I occasionally peruse, American Greatness, a collection of generally conservative lawyers and others, just shut down their comments function given the current state of potential slamming for somebody somewhere saying something nutty.

Wouldn’t it be funny if the old forum got shut down for something I said in their archives?

 
  • Liked by
Reply
0 on January 15, 2021

Oops. It’s American Thinker. American Greatness features Victor Davis Hansen. I like him too.

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
0 on January 15, 2021

Can’t have too much thinking, now can we.

The mob is on a rampage right now, and it really is indefensibly nonsensical. But then, that’s what mobs do.

*********

My general sense of things (and in a way, this goes to Rob’s “how’d you get there” thread), is that the glob we call “BigTech/BigMedia/DemocratParty” suffers from a lack of historical knowledge. US law in the area of freedom of expression is actually quite mature and well defined. But for the BTBMDP types, it is apparently far too permissive, so they are seeking to construct their own set of rules.

And they’re getting wrapped around the axle in the process.

It’s not surprising, in a way, that people are misinformed. I’d venture that the majority of Americans, if asked what are the permissible limits of free speech under the law, would say something about “fire in a crowded theater”.

Nevermind that somehow the word “falsely” has been dropped from the public consciousness, the real issue here is that Schenck v. United States, and the “clear and present danger” standard it established, is no longer controlling law. It was superseded (overturned is a better word) in 1968’s Brandenburg v. Ohio. I have many points of disagreement with William Brennan, but his expansive view of the First Amendment is not among them.

“Clear and present danger” is, as a matter of US Constitutional law, a dead letter.

And yet “fire in a crowded theater” (never anything more than a bit of over-wrought rhetorical flair from Oliver Wendell Holmes in the first place) remains in the minds of most Americans the only thing they know of First Amendment law.

So BTBMDP continues to flounder around, trying to square an impossible circle, and beclowning themselves in the process. They will, eventually, find themselves arriving at one of two places: Either the expansive freedom of expression view codified in Brandenburg, or absolute totalitarianism. There aren’t any other options. 

At present, they are obviously heading toward totalitarianism. We’ll see if they have the stomach for it. We’ll also find that they don’t have the control they think they do: I predict now that Twitter is a “dead man walking”. They are entering a period of sustained contraction. And the dirty little secret the media ignores is that Twitter’s decline will take them down as well.

As it relates to online discussion and the potential for censorship, my interpretation of Brandenburg leads me to conclude that comments along the lines of “Joe Politician should be taken out and HUNG!” or “I’d like to shoot Joe Politician!” are permissible. My view isn’t just a function of Brandenburg. It’s more based on a general belief that freedom of expression should always be the starting point, and comments like that must enjoy the presumption of being hyperbolic. Any public figure is going to have supporters and detractors, and we shouldn’t take the detractors’ inflammatory statements any more literally than we might take a supporter’s declaration that “I love Joe Politician so much I want to have his baby!”.

Which is to say, wildly enthusiastic or critical rhetoric is the norm, and trying to discern the line between allowable and impermissible levels of criticism is impossible.

But that is exactly the line that BTBMDP thinks they can draw. It’s no surprise that, in practice, their decisions have proven to be overwhelmingly partisan. It would be far better for them, operationally and probably legally, if they were to simply affirm their adherence to Brandenburg.

 

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
0 on January 15, 2021

Very well stated.

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
0 on January 15, 2021

Just occurred to me I failed to make a point I was hoping to get to.

Part of what we are seeing is something I’d call the arrogance of Big Tech. The culture there is frequently animated by thought like “We are re-inventing the world!” and stuff like that.

So, instead of turning to a 250 year legal tradition of First Amendment law in the US…a tradition which up until the day before yesterday was universally considered the Gold Standard for freedom of expression and conscience the world over…the Silicon Valley Grandees take it upon themselves to start from scratch. They are too smart to be bothered by something as messy as the law. They will, in their infinite wisdom, and with infinite opacity as to their process, come up with the metaphysically optimum policy. 

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel
0 on January 17, 2021

“Loophole”

  • Liked by
Reply
Cancel