Dr. Klonick previewed her support for the Government's ability to work with private companies to control the flow of information in a July op-ed for the New York Times, "The Future of Online Speech Shouldn't Belong to One Trump-Appointed Judge in Louisiana."
Under the First Amendment, speech does not belong to any person or entity.
Should the future of speech belong to CISA? The Department of Homeland Security subdivision monitored speech in the 2020 election through "Switchboarding," a process in which it flagged content for removal from social media platforms.
Should speech belong to unelected bureaucrats? Biden cronies like Rob Flaherty and Andy Slavitt have worked for years to control Americans' access to information, including censoring "Mal-information," meaning "Often-true information" that they consider "Sensational."
The injunction does not "Prevent anyone" in government from communicating with online platforms "About matters related to speech," as she claims; to the contrary, the injunction explicitly permits the Defendants to communicate with social media companies provided it does not infringe upon "Free speech [protected] by the Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment."
Pro-censorship advocates like Klonick and The New York Times imply that the internet presents unique challenges that require the government to "Stifle disinformation." But "Disinformation" has long been the pretext for tyrants to banish unwanted speech.
A century after the censorship of the Great War, Dr. Klonick asserts that the future of speech should belong to someone, just not Trump-appointed judges.
https://brownstone.org/articles/to-whom-should-the-right-of-speech-belong/
No comments:
Post a Comment