"China Was Right": Academics and Democratic Leaders Call For Censorship Of Social Media and The Internet
By: JONATHAN TURLEY
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Almost everywhere you turn today, politicians are telling the public to "get used to the new normal" after the pandemic. For some people, this means public health precautions from social distancing to banning handshakes. Others have quickly added long standing dreams for everything from the guaranteed basic income advocated by Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, which was also recently raised by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to mailed voting elections advocated by many Democrats.
The most chilling suggestion, however, comes from the politicians and academics who have called for the censorship of social media and the internet. The only thing spreading faster than the coronavirus has been censorship and the loud calls for greater restrictions on free speech. The Atlantic published an article last week by Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith and University of Arizona law professor Andrew Keane Woods calling for Chinese style censorship of the internet. While Goldsmith and Keane are obviously not calling for authoritarian abuse, they are advocating control over the Internet to regulate speech — crossing the Rubicon from free speech to censorship models.
They declared that "in the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong" and "significant monitoring and speech control are inevitable components of a mature and flourishing internet, and governments must play a large role in these practices to ensure that the internet is compatible with society norms and values."
The justification for that is the danger of "fake news" about coronavirus risks and cures. Yet this is only the latest rationalization for rolling back free speech rights. For years, Democratic leaders in Congress called for censorship of "fake news" on social media sites. Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have all engaged in increasing levels of censorship and have a well known reputation for targeting conservative speech.
Hillary Clinton has demanded that political speech be regulated to avoid the "manipulation of information" and stated that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg "should pay a price for what he is doing to our democracy" by refusing to take down opposition postings. In Europe, free speech rights are in a free fall, and countries such as France and Germany are imposing legal penalties designed to censor speech across the world.
Many of us in the free speech community have warned of the growing insatiable appetite for censorship in the West. We have been losing the fight, and free speech opponents are now capitalizing on the opportunity presented by the pandemic. Representative Adam Schiff sent a message to the heads of Google, Twitter, and YouTube demanding censorship of anything deemed "misinformation" and "false information." Schiff told the companies that they needed "to remove or limit content" and that, "while taking down harmful misinformation is a crucial step", they also needed to educate "those users who accessed it" by making available the true facts.
YouTube did just that by removing two videos of California doctors who called for the easing of state lockdown orders. The doctors argued that the coronavirus is not as dangerous as suggested and that some deaths associated with the disease are actually not accurate. There is certainly ample reason to contest their views but, instead, YouTube banned the videos to keep others from reaching their own conclusions.
Facebook will not only remove posts it considers misinformation about the coronavirus but will issue warnings to those who "like" such postings. Facebook said that it wants to protect people from dangerous remedies and false data. Ironically, the World Health Organization praised Sweden for its rejection of the very restrictions criticized by the two doctors. The group declared that Sweden is a "model" country despite its rejection of lockdown measures being protested in the United States.
Moreover, many mainstream media sources have reported information that is now known to be false from the lack of any benefits of wearing masks to the failure in trials of drugs like remdesivir to the shortage of thousands of ventilators. Despite those being wrong, related opposing views were often treated as either fringe or false positions.
This subjectivity of censorship is why the cure is worse than the illness. The best cure for bad speech is more speech rather than regulation. The fact is that the pandemic, as Clinton reminded voters, is a "terrible crisis to waste." Yet the waste for some would be to emerge from the pandemic with free speech intact. Even former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean, who has falsely declared that hate speech is not protected under the First Amendment, recently boycotted MSNBC until it stopped airing press briefings by President Trump as "fake news."
Ocasio Cortez has called for action against Facebook for not censoring false or misleading political ads. In a confrontation with Zuckerberg, she dismissed concerns over censorship of speech and demanded, "So you will not take down lies or you will take down lies? I think that is a pretty simple yes or no." Whether contesting lockdown orders by officials or challenging the views of politicians, you can just declare an opposing view as "misinformation" and demand that others not see it.
This crisis is a chance to redefine free speech to allow greater ability to control what opponents say and what the public reads. Academics have been laying the foundation for an anemic form of free speech for years. Even college presidents a few years ago had declared that there is no protection for "disingenuous misrepresentation of free speech."
Goldsmith and Woods wrote that the public should resist those "urging a swift return to normal," and the "extraordinary measures we are seeing are not all that extraordinary." So this is the new normal that some leaders and academics want the public to accept. After all, it is hard to get people to give up freedoms. It takes a crisis to convince them that notions like free speech are no longer relevant. After spending years seeking to convince Americans to follow the European trend against free speech, these folks are using the pandemic to claim that free speech could kill you.
Censorship works in a country much like the coronavirus. Initially, you feel better from silencing those views that you consider lies. Then comes the crash as others demand more and more censorship, including views that you consider to be true. That is what has happened in Europe, where an expanding range of speech is being criminalized or censored. Without uncensored speech, the political system is left gasping for air.
China has been particularly eager not to "waste" the opportunity of this crisis. Chinese professor Xu Zhangrun is one of many citizens arrested after publishing criticism of Xi Jinping on his handling of the crisis. The government deemed such criticism to be fake news causing panic. It has censored accounts of its concealing the source of the original outbreak, including censorship on popular Chinese apps such as WeChat.
Citizens now will have to decide, as Goldsmith and Woods insist, if "China was right." For my part, I remain hopelessly wedded to old-fashioned notions of free speech before the pandemic. You see, this "new normal" seems a lot like the old normal that the Framers changed with the First Amendment. China may be right for many in Congress and academia, but it remains on the wrong side of history. Not even a pandemic will change that.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley .
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
94 visitors
"You see, this "new normal" seems a lot like the old normal that the Framers changed with the First Amendment. China may be right for many in Congress and academia, but it remains on the wrong side of history. Not even a pandemic will change that."
Trump is off topic
The things I would like to see censored are child porn sites, supremacist sites, phony preacher sites soliciting money for their own personal financial gains, sites that promote violence, and those who provide details on how to make bombs.
Who decides on that Paula?
It is just what I would like to see censored. I have no idea who would do it.
I feel the same way on certain issues, but let's face it everyone seems to have a bias these days, especially the social media organizations who are currently controlling content on their own.
The internet was invented in just the last few decades, so how did free speech exist before the internet? Oh, that's right, through virtually every other medium, from people wearing sign boards stating "The End Is Near!" to newspapers, radio, television, and in every medium those who operate those businesses have a say in the content that can be transmitted through their medium. When airplanes were invented someone came up with skywriting, but does that mean that any skywriting company must print in the sky whatever a customer may want to print? Are they not allowed to refuse to print something they deem a vicious lie? Would they not be able to refuse to write in the sky above the public's heads "ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE PIG F^%$#ERS!"? Would a company refusing to print such a statement really be violating free speech? If not, then why is that any different than Facebook not allowing their platform to be used for hate speech or blatant lies and libel against other groups of people?
I see no issue with the media companies refusing to regurgitate what they deem as lies, especially those intended to attack and malign other law abiding American citizens. If some feel they should get to spread their message of bigotry, racial superiority or make outrageous unproven claims against minorities or the lgbtq community with no limits then they can go start their own FB or Google company and print whatever they want to their hearts content.
Jonathan Turley isn't being censored, he can get his message out just like everyone else, and it was Jack Goldsmiths and Andrew Keane Woods using their free speech to express their opinion about censorship. This proves that Turleys long pointless whine seeded here about us becoming China is beyond ridiculous and should be accepted much like his useless and flawed opinions during the impeachment trial, but hey, he still has the right to post it no matter how much it resembles manure.
And if government took on that role?
Re-education camps and their "therapies" would work.
Seems to me the right should have championed net neutrality then.
Can you imagine the change in censorship from one administration to another?
These days truth and lies are more a matter of perception, kind of like law schools allow black turned into white as a legal exercise.
We are going through an era of truth being reduced to relativism. Similar, but far more serious to the era of "yellow journalism".
With the rules being thrown out, we are at a place where providers can block or throttle content.
I would say 'relativism' has been ongoing with the advent of cable news where one can just watch confirmation bias.
There is no way around that in the currently polarized environment. Nobody can be trusted to decide what is a lie or what kind of content incites violence, etc. There is only one way to go - ALLOW EVERYTHING!
Which is pretty much what net neutrality would have done.
Actually that is a bit of a different argument. Everybody having internet access is different from content being censured.
I never said anything about people having internet access. What scrapping net neutrality rules did was give content providers a green light to control content.
The poor being able to have access was only used as a talking point to be able to scrap the rules.
It's too bad Hillary didn't win. "Elections have consequences"
Only in bizzaro conservative Republican world, where up is down, wrong is right, lies are truth and a slimy self admitted sexual predator is considered a Saint.
“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” ― Daniel Patrick Moynihan
The same Daniel Patrick Moynihan who authored "the Moynihan Report" which modern progressives regard as one big lie!
Yep they do. What you are complaining about though is something your own party has allowed to happen.
What is it I'm complaining about?
The whole seed seems to be a complaint. By seeding it one would figure the seeder agrees with it.
Saying Democrats want censorship while at the same time ignoring the republican policies that allow it.
As always the reader gets to decide. I have faith in them.
What qualifies anyone at YouTube or Facebook to evaluate the value of conflicting opinions from scientists?
People like those at MBFC make those kind of decisions for them.