Tag: debate

Propaganda

The arguments I present at the dinner table to convince you of my position/proposal, will succeed or fail depending on their merits and the skill with which I present and defend them. My freedom to make my case at home or your home or in the public square (Kiwanis Club, Facebook, X, etc.) and yours to challenge it and/or to make your own, is an essential feature of our free and flourishing society. It is a right guaranteed in the First Amendment to our Constitution. The give and take and challenges of such debate improve the prospect of adopting better policies and proposals and of their broad public support.

The Woke movement to prevent, shout down, or otherwise silence hate speech (at least in the eyes of some) violated our freedom of speech and the virtues of its protection. It was rightly opposed and seems in retreat, last year’s measures by Columbia and many other Universities to prevent pro-Palestinian demonstrations notwithstanding. Demonstrations that violate or threaten the rights and/or safety of others are not protected speech and should be banned.

The anti-free speech virus has spread to elements of the right wing as well. According to Jacob Mchangama in “Reflections on right-wing cancel culture”:

 “’The Left started it.’

“That was the common retort from right-wing X accounts like Libs of TikTok and their supporters, who attempted and often succeeded at getting people fired for making tasteless social media posts about the assassination attempt on Donald Trump back in July. 

“Most of their victims weren’t public figures but regular Americans like Home Depot employees, firefighters, chefs, and school counselors. This was fine and good, many argued, because it constituted sweet revenge for cancel culture excesses driven by the Left.” 

Constructive civil discourse is a valuable skill some have forgotten or never learned. Efforts to strengthen such skills by Braver Angles and other groups are encouraging.

On the other hand, measures by an increasing number of governments to ban speech they disapprove of seem to be growing. It is not all together surprising that the governments of Russia, China, Pakistan, Hungary, Brazil have banned unfriendly news sources and reporters. Measures in the U.S. to remove what our government considers false information for social media is shocking. Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta the owner of Facebook, recently expressed regret for the company’s past decisions regarding content moderation, particularly concerning COVID-19. In a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, he revealed that senior officials from the Biden administration pressured Facebook to censor certain content, including humor and satire related to the pandemic. Zuckerberg stated, “I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it”

More shocking still, Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector and US Marine Corps intelligence officer, had his home searched by the FBI, potentially due to allegations related to his failure to register as a foreign agent. It is more likely that the real reason is our governments anger at his attacks on its efforts to suppress “disinformation” in the press. He recently participated in a discussion titled “Free Speech & The DOJ attack on Independent Journalism,” highlighting concerns about governmental interference in free speech and press freedoms. Ritter has been vocal on social media, urging authorities to respect the Constitution and stop restricting free speech and press activities. This interview of Ritter is well worth watching: Scott Ritter interview

If that doesn’t shock freedom loving Americans, surely this will. Pavel Durov, the CEO and founder of the messaging app Telegram, was recently arrested in France. He was detained as part of an ongoing judicial investigation into alleged criminal activities facilitated by Telegram, including the spread of child pornography, cyberscams, and organized crime. Durov has criticized the charges as “surprising” and “misguided,” arguing that it is unreasonable to hold a platform or its CEO accountable for user-generated content. He emphasized that Telegram complies with European Union regulations and has robust content moderation practices. The arrest has sparked discussions about the balance between free speech and the responsibility of social media platforms in moderating harmful content.

And then there are evil people who deliberately lie and deceive for the purpose of doing harm? Russia, for example, might judge it in its interest to weaken the United States by undermining America’s public trust in our institutions thus diminishing our effectiveness as a nation. “The Russian government’s covert efforts to sway the 2024 presidential election are more advanced than in recent years, and the most active foreign threat this political season, U.S. intelligence officials said Friday.” “Russia-election-covert-disinformation” But which way would Russia’s interests be best served. Ritter argues that Russia’s interest in the outcome of the American Presidential election is for a President whose policies will be predictable. That hardly describes Donald Trump.

A more challenging question is what to do about those unknowingly spreading false information believing it’s true (e.g. Antivaxxers).  In which of these boxes should we put someone like Tucker Carlson—deliberately deceiving –unknowingly deceiving—or sometimes right? These are not easy questions. I urge you to read Damon Linker’s exploration of Tucker Carlson’s diabolical motives: “The anti-liberal right builds a usable past”

So, what should we do? Defending our freedom to speak should be a top priority. “Do we really need free speech?”  Where should we look for the facts and to expose fake information? Social media and fake news”. What role should government play?

At the end of the day, it is what each of us believes that matters. It is in our own interest to evaluate the reliability of various sources of information. The government can help by being such a source, but it must earn our trust for the objectivity of its research and disclosure. It must never censor the information provided by others.  Government can require and promote the transparency of the information provided by others (e.g, who has paid for it).  This role for government will minimize the incentive for private parties to exert pressure on the government to support one version of the truth and suppress others. We must decide for ourselves, but our institutions can and should contribute to our filtering fact from fiction and help expose liars.  Freedom isn’t free.

Free to Speak

I disagree with many of the claims and proposals made by Critical Race Theorists. But the best way to challenge it are with public debt. Hiding it away violates our constitutional protection of free speech and will not be successful in exposing its errors. I remember being surprised and enlightened by reading “Black Like Me” years ago. It recounts the experiences of a white man who had turned his skin black traveling in the South as a black man (or as a negro as polite people said in those days). Did the shock harm me? Hardly. The lack of challenges to our ideas turns us to mush. https://wapo.st/3sYWltz

Happily, some, like FIRE, are fighting back. One excellent presentation of the value and importance of free speech and of civilly speaking up to defend what we believe and to listening to what others believe by the producers of earlier “Free to Choose” series, can be seen on PBS starting Oct 1.   “Free to Speak”  I urge you to watch it.

Persuasion or Coercion

Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville might be right or wrong about opposing the defense Department’s policy “of providing travel expenses for service women seeking an abortion.” But President Biden is certainly right in claiming that Tuberville’s unilateral “blocking more than 300 military [nominations] with his extreme political agenda” is “jeopardize[ing] the country’s national security.”  “Biden Tuberville military clash”

The DOD must determine the policies that will attract the solders that we need in our All Volunteer Military. Those policies should be open to public debate. But Tuberville has chosen coercion to impose his views rather than persuasion to seek consensus . This is not proper in a free society governed by publicly endorsed laws. It prevents the sort of public debate that will most likely find the best balance between the opposing views of people living in the same space. And it will certainly deepen divides that will diminish rather than enhance civility. In short, it bad for the nation.

But our liberal democracy has survived for two hundred and fifty years because when the pendulum swings too far in one direction, it invariably swings back. Hopefully we are reaching the extreme of the pendulum swing of right-left antagonism. Efforts are growing to rebuild the civil dialog from which we can better live together in liberty. See for example groups like Braver Angles https://braverangels.org/   We should fight to preserve our freedom to live as we choose rather than to restrict the choices of others to live as they choose.