Ms. Information
In which I practice the true art of making an ass of myself--a right that was hard won by our founders...
I taught high school English for 30 years and high school Journalism for just as long. I’ve been a freelance journalist for nearly that whole time and now that I’m retired from the classroom, I write much more frequently than I used to for several different publications, mostly about wine and viticulture among other things. So, my vested interest in the First Amendment has become something sacred to me. Free speech is the bedrock and foundation of free people. Nothing else can substitute.
But who will deny that it has taken a beating in recent years as “cancel culture,” silencing dissenting voices, and self-censorship become tolerated among groups seeking power and influence? The creeping nature of these evils manifests itself in many ways, including using terms like “misinformation” and “disinformation,” as descriptors of speech and discussion that don’t agree with a dominant narrative. This has become obvious in discussions surrounding Covid and subsequent actions taken by various governments and their agents, among many other things. And it is on all sides of the political debate, to be sure.
So, on my Facebook feed, I posited a couple of fundamental First Amendment quotes, and I concluded with a post that provocatively said, “There is no such thing as misinformation. There is only information with which you agree or disagree.” It got a lot of commentary, which is a good thing—at least to the extent that such a provocation should. One comment took me to task entirely saying, “your statement is wrong,” and then attempting the challenge, “The holocaust didn’t happen,” and by so writing, the author, a former student, now a teacher and a good bloke, said that according to my definition, that was information that someone could agree or disagree with.
Fair point, except ultimately—that is exactly what the statement is. People have a right to be wrong about things, including history. The evil that was the Holocaust shaped our world forever, but there are those who say it didn’t happen. They’re wrong—but free speech means they get to be wrong. And yes, it is perhaps a little dangerous that people get to be wrong. The world is dangerous, after all.
My point in such a provocation is to draw attention to the one fundamental that everyone from the U.S. Supreme Court (in many eras) to George Orwell to Oscar Wilde has made clear: The right to speak freely is the foundation of freedom, and once censorship, or “Newspeak,” or “scurrilous accusations” about truth become the norm, then freedom is lost. And this clearly means that if you believe in basic human freedom, the right for each person to do as he or she wishes, then no amount of silencing them can ever be tolerated, even if you disagree with them. Matt Taibbi pointed out recently the quote from the Clinton-era movie, The American President, in which Michael Douglas as the president says,
"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."
And that’s probably the best working definition of the First Amendment that I can think of, at least for now. It’s also important because it cuts to the heart of what this conversation must center around. The government “calling out” misnformation, or disinformation, is totally unacceptable. It is, in fact, the reason for the First Amendment in the first place.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Say what you will about the founders, but they totally got succinct writing.
We cannot have a political class that demands we stop using words, nor one that demands we change how we use our words, save for rude, or discourteous language. We cannot have a government that uses any brand of political correctness to screen what it chooses to hear from its people, and we cannot have a government that tells us that by “saying certain things,” we are inciting criminal or violent activity. Incitement must rise to much more than words. Even various iterations of the Supreme Court have upheld this notion. Justice Anthony Kennedy said:
“First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.”
Just so, Justice Kennedy. And Justice Louis Brandeis said:
“If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
That’s more speech, not less. More noise, not silence.
We’re at a pretty serious crossroads in the U.S., but God knows we’ve been at them before (see my post on Gettysburg). Whether or not we move forward with charity, liberty and justice for all will largely be a result of whether or not we allow people to say that which makes other people uncomfortable.
And this isn’t a left/right political issue. I’ll walk right up to, and over the line with that belief. It simply is not political to state the truth and yet we saw truth washed away in so many instances, case in point, the Covid debacle and subsequent lockdowns. Here are non-political truths, for example: Closing schools was a bad idea, made worse the longer they were closed. The vaccines stopped neither transmission nor the obtaining of the disease, and caused a number of physical harms in a large number of people. Masks never worked as a wall to prevent transmission, and mandating them was not only pointless, but illegal. In fact, mandates in general from vaccines to masks were entirely unconstitutional because they prevent individuals from acting in their best interest.
Yet those very things were said between 2020 and early 2021, and the government under both president Trump and president Biden sought to silence those voices in social media by working with companies to de-amplify and in some cases de-platform dissenting ideas. Emails revealed that Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Francis Collins sought to use their authority to silence expert epidemiologists and public health doctors like Jay Battacharya, Martin Kulldorff and Sunetra Gupta. These examples are not supposed to be the hallmark of a nation that prides itself on freedom of speech. There’s simply no way to define that as politically one-sided.
This is also true of the Patriot Act passed under President George W. Bush. That one act removed so many rights of American citizens (1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, among others) that it’s a wonder it is still in tact—uness you realize that once the government takes something away from you, they’re very unlikely to give it back. It’s also true of the recent move for states toward something called a “Real ID,” and demanding that you have it before you travel. Real ID is a violation of the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” People have a right to travel, and the government doesn’t have a right to tell them they cannot (with the obvious exception of border controls that each country puts into place, such as they are…).
All of those things are true and do not depend on a political worldview, and yet it is politics that drives one to argue with any one of those facts.
So, when the government starts telling us what is information and what is “misinformation,” it has already violated the Constitution and committed over-reach the likes of which becomes the true “slippery slope” in how free people exercise that freedom.
I feel strange posting this essay, but I’m also passionate about the First Amendment. I know there are some who will disagree with me—and that’s fine, I welcome that. Maybe it’s enough to practice what Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post said in 1970 during the Pentagon Papers incident: “The best way to assert the right to publish, is to publish.” Keep talking, keep writing. I’ll do the same and if nothing else, together we can support what Oscar Wilde said: “I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.”
Onward.
Thank you Mark. Our first amendment rights are becoming endangered now. I certainly support the sentiments you expressed and am so thankful for your writing. The federal government along with certain state and local governments are now supplanting the Bill of Rights/Constitution with their own doctrines of what is acceptable or not acceptable words in writing and speech. This corresponds to their desire to control their political agendas and silence those who do not endorse their ideology. Losing our right to free speech, to use the “pen” as a voice and to be fearful of standing for our beliefs is a frightening prospect. Amen to your amazing work! This is my first time ever commenting on a forum of any kind. It’s well worth the expression- Merylee
Well stated my friend. It is up to people to keep speaking, keep writing, not be silent or our rights will continue to be infringed upon and ultimately taken.
Thank you continuing to write Mark, it’s always a pleasure to read.