Dark Times

For John, BLUF:  The Press has always been partisan, but now it seems to be involved with Government Agencies to suppress free speech.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Washington Post Says Democracy Demands Less Freedom of Speech

Here is the sub-headline:

The paper worries that "social media companies are receding from their role as watchdogs against political misinformation."

From Reason, by Editor Jacob Sullum, 25 August 2023, 4:20 PM.

Here is the lede plus two:

Donald Trump was back on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, last night for the first time since he got the boot in 2021 following the riot by his supporters at the U.S. Capitol. Trump posted the mug shot of him that was taken at Atlanta's jail this week when he was booked on the charges laid out in his Georgia indictment, which stem from his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in that state. He included a caption that described the indictment as "ELECTION INTERFERENCE" and urged his followers to "NEVER SURRENDER!"

After taking over the platform that was then known as Twitter last year, Elon Musk, an avowed "free speech absolutist," reinstated Trump's account. But this is the first time that Trump, who started a competing platform that is still known as Truth Social, has made use of Musk's permission. The Washington Post, in a news story published this morning, portrays Musk's decision and the attitude underlying it as part of a worrisome trend that threatens "democracy" by allowing "political misinformation" to proliferate on social media. The piece nicely illustrates the confusion, obfuscation, and hypocrisy that characterize mainstream press coverage of that subject.

As is typical of this journalistic genre, Post reporters Naomi Nix and Sarah Ellison never address the question of what counts as "misinformation," a highly contested category. Nor do they grapple with the content moderation problem of how to deal with politicians who say things of public interest that are arguably or demonstrably untrue. And although they allude to a constitutional challenge provoked by the federal government's efforts to restrict speech on social media platforms, they never mention the First Amendment. That is a pretty striking omission by people whose profession relies on that amendment's protections and who claim to be worried about the health of our democracy.

If our speech is moderated by the Government then how we vote will be influenced by the Gvernment, or the Deep State.  That there isn't absolute outrage over actions to suppress the Hunter Biden Laptop story is a major disappintment to me.  I understand that such suppression helped Candidate Joe Biden win election in 2020, but the ends don't justify the means.

There should be no doubt in peoples' minds that The Washington Post is helping to subvert the principles of The Declaration of Independece and The Constitution.  It is sad.  Very sad.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff