Today was a bizarre day on the Supreme Court. Ketanji Brown-Jackson (remember the woman who doesn’t know what a woman is because she’s not a biologist?) expressed concern that the First Amendment gets in the way of the government censoring speech. She really doesn’t know the purpose of the First Amendment? It is literally to get in the way of the government censoring speech.
The most frightening thing to hear in a free and open society are voices in positions of power specifying that whether one is free to express a thought depends on whether that thought harms the “public,” “national,” or “societal” interests. That is the meaning of “moderation”—it’s code for censorship.
Who determines the public interest? The people with the power to censor speech. Those aren’t the general interests, I assure you. Those are the specific interests of specific groups—the interests and the groups in power. If they can tell you what to say, then they have power over you.
Speech that supports the interests of groups in power is often a type of speech called “propaganda.” Free speech guarantees that individuals can openly challenge propaganda. Any claim an individual makes is subject to a counterclaim. If that is to be a free process, there can be no cost to the challenger.
There’s a word for the suppression of speech that harms the interests of powerful groups. It’s called totalitarianism.
Finally, beware of those who justify censorship in the name of protecting powerless groups. To be sure, there are situations where child safeguarding requires preventing speech that would sexualize or traumatize children. But in the realm of adults, individuals must expect in a free society to hear things they will disagree with or find offensive.
freedom and reason 