The fallout continues. After a federal judge in Louisiana issued a ruling curtailing the federal government’s ability to pressure private social media companies into suppressing dissenting views on their platforms, members of the chattering class are all in a tizzy at the prospect of the state no longer silencing their political opposition in the digital realm.
The ruling has sparked debates over the boundaries of free speech online and the government’s influence on social media platforms. Republicans accuse social media sites of disproportionately removing right-leaning content in collaboration with federal agencies, while Democrats argue that the platforms have failed to adequately police misinformation and hateful speech.
Many high-profile talking heads have been blasting the judge’s ruling for a variety of reasons. Author David Faris penned an op-ed in which he claims the judge made “the rookie mistake of conflating speech protected from government censorship by the First Amendment with the internal policies of private entities like LinkedIn or YouTube.”
Faris bloviated:
You do not have the right to an account on Twitter, nor do you have the right to post whatever you want on Facebook. A private company determining, with or without government input or pressure, that someone has violated its terms of service should be of no concern to the Western District of Louisiana. The First Amendment protects your right to say and think whatever anti-vaccine nonsense you huffed straight out of a paint can, but it does not compel anyone to share those hallucinations on their platforms.
Faris also made the laughable claim that preventing Justice Department employees from colluding with social media employees “is an actual First Amendment violation.”
CNN media activist Elie Honig accused the judge of espousing “conservative political ideology” as she complained about the decision:
He is citing to literature and George Washington, Ben Franklin. Here is what is astonishing to me, this is a conservative ideology that clearly comes through in this decision. It is a conservative political ideology. We saw some of the quotes questioning vaccines, questioning masks – conservative talking points. But the ruling is opposite of judicial conservatism. This is one of the most aggressive, far reaching rulings you will ever see.
Miriam Metzger, a communication professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, told The New York Times: “That’s the really important distinction here: The government should be able to inform social media companies about things that they feel are harmful to the public.”
None of us are surprised that the activist media is railing against this decision, right?
I’m not the only one who noticed. Conservative radio host Dana Loesch also pointed it out on Twitter:
Instead of writing stories about how the federal government conspired with tech companies to suppress free speech, the American Pravda frames the issue as righties changing the First Amendment over paranoia.
Instead of writing stories about how the federal government conspired with tech companies to suppress free speech, the American Pravda frames the issue as righties changing the First Amendment over paranoia.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) July 6, 2023
She’s right, of course.
Because the reality is that members of the left-wing propaganda machine known as the establishment media want the state to collude with Big Tech to suppress content they find distasteful. They care nothing for free speech unless that speech advances a statist agenda. This brings me to my ultimate point: The legacy media is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the government and works to assist the state in accomplishing its objectives, which inevitably leads to more power for the ruling class.
Free speech is the lifeblood of a free society, ensuring the open exchange of ideas and fostering a vibrant public discourse. The media acts as a mere extension of the government, promoting the interests of the elites who control it.
The right to free speech is enshrined in the Constitution and serves as a vital check on governmental power. Any potential collusion between the federal government and tech companies to suppress free speech is a grave threat to liberty.
The press is supposed to play a crucial role in holding power accountable and informing the public. Instead, its members have decided to play the role of opinion-molders on behalf of the state. Fortunately, all is not lost. There are still independent journalists out there doing great work to expose government overreach and abuse. Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, and Lee Fang are some prime examples. The existence of digital media has given a fighting chance to those who want to inform the public instead of influencing it. These are the ones who deserve our support, not the corporate interests that work to edify the state instead of the public.
