For people fearful of the power of companies like Facebook and Twitter, Mark Zuckerberg is right out of central casting. A Silicon Valley billionaire with an androidish demeanor, he comes across as more machine than man in responding to politicians on Capitol Hill who, at times, appear on the verge of hysterics over the supposed “lies” of their opponent.
With the House Financial Services Committee hearing this past week, Democrats and the media condemned Zuckerberg and his refusal to put a stop to false political ads. As unpopular as it may be, however, Zuckerberg is right that what members are demanding from Facebook is censorship and, if allowed, it would create a dangerous regulation of free speech. Indeed, the scariest thing to come out of the hearing, besides the relative silence of civil liberties and free speech groups, is that Zuckerberg may be one of the last barriers to a system of political censorship in America.
Watching the cable news coverage of the hearing, you sensed the rising revulsion on some networks over his refusal to promise to review and regulate political ads for alleged lies. Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez of New York made regulating political speech sound noble and obvious by demanding, “So you will not take down lies or you will take down lies? I think that is just a pretty simple yes or no.” The answer, if you believe in free speech, is a simple no. Media hosts and writers expressed disbelief that Zuckerburg would allow lies to pervade the 2020 election, and Ocasio Cortez was heralded for “schooling” and “dismantling” him.
I have written for years about the erosion of free speech in Western democracies, particularly in Britain, France, and Germany. Governments now regulate political speech and prosecute those deemed to engage in hate speech or false speech. In the United States, calls for greater speech regulation are growing on college campuses all across the country and in media outlets, both once the bastions of free speech.
On college campuses, conservative or controversial speakers are routinely prevented from participating in discussions. A controversy at the Harvard Crimson newspaper is illustrative of this trend. The student newspaper was completing a story on immigration issues and protests. The reporter did what any responsible journalist would do and asked the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency for a response. That request triggered a furious counterprotest. It was not the content of the comment that sparked it, but the mere solicitation of comment from the agency.
University of Pennsylvania students recently prevented a discussion with former Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Thomas Homan. Georgetown University students prevented others from discussing immigration policy with Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan. No action was taken by the college against the students. Northwestern University students stopped a class from discussing policy with an Immigration and Customs Enforcement representative after the class heard from an undocumented person. Student April Navarro rejected the right of the professor to have a “nice conversation” about the agency. Again, no action was taken by the college against the students.
The House hearing with Zuckerberg revealed what House Democrats want to create, which is a system where companies can block political ads deemed false. Of course, reasonable minds can disagree on what is false in politics. But history shows that once this power is given to regulate speech, the appetite for censorship then becomes insatiable.
An insight can be found in the work of the British Advertising Standards Authority. Established to weed out gender and racial stereotypes and other social ills in advertising, the authority has set about its task with humorless zeal and recently banned commercials for Philadelphia Cream Cheese and Volkswagen. The first showed men so lost in enjoying the cream cheese that they leave their babies on a conveyor belt.
The fact that it was a joke did not matter since, as Ella Smillie of the agency explained, “The use of humor or banter is unlikely to mitigate against the potential for harm.” The commercial was spiked for implicating that women are better at child care. The Volkswagen commercial was taken down for having images of male astronauts and hikers along with a brief shot of a woman with a baby. Clearly, Volkswagen was saying that women cannot be astronauts or hikers.
Americans have long resisted such boards or authorities. Yet Democrats are using Russian internet trolling operations and presidential tweets to make another play for speech regulation. Would Ocasio Cortez feel the same way about Facebook banning an ad featuring her false assertion that the “vast majority” of Americans do not make a “living wage”? Or her false assertion that Walmart and Amazon do not pay minimum wages? Or how about her false assertion that most of “Medicare for All” could be paid for by simply recouping $21 trillion lost due to “Pentagon errors”?
I wonder if Zuckerberg sees the irony?
So, let’s see here; demands that only certain political ads can be published (I’m sure relying on AOC and her ilk to tell us what “lies” are can lead to no harm), any opinions other than liberal opinions are suppressed or violently shut down, facts that support other ideas are not allowed to be presented and an impeachment of a President of the United States is conducted in total secrecy and only specific, controlled bits of information gets leaked. WHO supports this kind of totalitarianism?
Democrats.
We citizens cannot be relied upon to make the RIGHT decisions until all the WRONG options have been eliminated. Those supporting this kind of thought control don’t get that THEY are the model for it. They are easily controlled but those with open minds need to be restricted of what they see and think.
Having the worst liars in Congress sit there and tell someone that they want to eliminate lying is pretty insulting.
I agree with Zuckerberg—defense of Ist Amendment.
Why does Trump whine so much about fake news? Freedom of the Press
Trump enjoins the Govt to cxl all subscriptions to NYT and WAPO—await his instructions on what can be read.—–when in doubt just read his tweets.
Does anyone else think this CRAZY.
@Richard Wheeler:
Maybe the same reason Gabbard “whines” about fake news. Remember her whining about fake news?
Nope. In fact, it appears he is far more sane and stable than those who obsessively oppose him.
@Richard Wheeler:
They are not one and the same. The press should be free, but not free to print salacious lies, be outed and then print a retraction on the left hand bottom corner of page 12, or no retraction at all.
Good. I see no need for forcing the American taxpayer to line the pockets of the most disgraceful, lying press outlets in our nation. If the career leeches who work in these agencies want those papers, let them pay for them..
Of course, Trump is being pilloried in the press, for cancelling those newspapers, which seems to have a convenient memory. JFK ordered the cancellation of The New York Herald Tribune to the White House and all agencies in 1962. Oooops.
@retire05: He needs to issue daily press notices denouncing them and their lies. After all, NYT made it their mission to propagate lies about Trump being racist. Let the liberals pay for the liberal rags. I don’t want my money spent on such trash.
@Deplorable Me: Exactly—Trump can give us the truth daily.
No one could be more “sane and stable.”—whoever believes that should be checked out.
@Richard Wheeler: Well, it’s been established the NYT can’t give us any truth anytime. Why is Gabbard whining about the media? Is she a whiny crybaby that can’t take a little negative media coverage? That seems to be a real tough one for you to answer.
Joseph Goebbels, a one-time journalist, wrote: “Any man who still has a residue of honor will be very careful not to become a journalist.” When Hitler took power in 1933, the Nazis controlled less than three percent of Germany’s 4,700 papers. The elimination of the multiparty political system not only brought about the demise of hundreds of newspapers produced by outlawed political parties; it also allowed the state to seize the printing plants and equipment of the Communist and Social Democratic Parties, which were often turned over directly to the Nazi Party. In the following months, the Nazis established control or exerted influence over independent press organs. One needs to read more
@Deplorable Me: Major Gabbard made her statement, calm and collected like the Army Officer she is— and moved on,
Trump cries and whines like a spoiled brat nearly every day.
ARE YOU SERIOUSLY SAYING WE SHOULD GET THE NEWS FROM HIM?.
@Richard Wheeler: You put far too much effort into avoiding the question. One wonders why. Why not just answer if Gabbard is being a whiny little crybaby, bitching and complaining about getting some harsh press OR does the media engage in character assassination at the behest of Democrat controllers? It’s simple… one or the other.
You arrogant liberals have long bemoaned Trump calling out lies in the media. Then, like all other exposed corruption, when it is turned against even your most favorite dream candidate, even when the Democrat you claim to have never supported is at that bottom of it, you can’t bring yourself to face the reality and answer a simple (if embarrassing) question.
Time and time again you have said Trump has lied only to have it shown that Trump was right all along and the left was doing all the lying. Yeah, if given a choice between Trump and the NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC or any Democrat, I’ll listed to Trump. All the others are filthy, low-life liars.
@MOS #8541: Either our favorite liberals aren’t aware of the history of National Socialism, fascism and propaganda or they simply think no one else is. Either way, they are guided by complete ignorance.
@Deplorable Me: Avoiding the question? As usual you refuse to accept my answer—-NO—given for the 3rd and final time.
You continue to enjoy having a one way conversation with yourself—-you whine about most every thing.===non stop.
@Richard Wheeler: Rich, the issue is that some of us don’t think the 1st amendment protects propaganda outlets that get to lie about news and pretend it’s true.
Trump is a response, not the initial infraction.
Can the NYT say whatever they want? Sure. When they control government and elections through misinformation and lies?
That’s the issue.
Democrats would win no elections without a culture engineered by misinformation and false outrage.
Objective reporting is good. Propaganda is bad.
Fox’s influence does not begin to equate to the liberal media bias of Nbc, abc, cnn, cbs, msnbc, slaon, slate, wapo, snl, huffpo, nyt, etc…
The Left stokes fear and jealousy, and that gets votes.
@Richard Wheeler: So your answer is you won’t answer the question. Well, I can’t say I’m surprised. So I will.
No, Gabbard is not a crybaby. She has a real complaint. The liberal media is corrupt and serves as the propaganda arm of the Democrat party. Sometimes, when someone controlling their message directs it, they have to attack one of their own. That’s what happened to Gabbard; she jumped on the wrong socialist bandwagon in 2016 and Hillary, the evil, vindictive criminal bitch the DNC chose to represent YOU in 2016, didn’t like it… and SHE holds a grudge.
Your ideology is supported on a foundation of lies. Democrats can’t go 5 minutes without lying. Biden just said he attended a black college; Democrats can tell ANY lie that suits them because they can be fully confident the media will not call them out.
Obviously, I am not telling you something you don’t already know. Otherwise, you would have answered my question.
@Deplorable Me: I question your comprehension of simple English.
Three times I said Major Gabbard is not a crybaby—-glad you agree.
Much easier to have a cogent conversation with my favorite FA VET and Tulsi supporter—-Nathan Blue.
@Richard Wheeler: Yeah, but you wouldn’t answer the media portion of the question because you can’t face the fact that the liberal media feeds you lies on a regular, daily basis. You only see and hear what you want to see and hear, as long as it supports your prejudiced bias. So, I answered it for you.
@Deplorable Me: That’s your problem—-you answer for others based on—wait—the lies you are fed on a regular basis from DT and right wing media and crazed blogs—-see how that works?
Did you see General Kelly’s comments? Was that fake news?
@Richard Wheeler: Well, I only gave you about 10 opportunities to answer yourself, buy you declined. If you have a different view, feel free to (belatedly) respond. But, based on the documented facts, you can’t bring yourself to address the lies the liberal media spew out on a regular basis. Right now, the liberal media can only criticize Trump for taking a “victory lap” instead of joining other Americans in celebrating the death of a horrific terrorist… a terrorist Obama laid at the world’s doorstep, by the way.
Did Democrats really have proof of Trump’s collusion with Russia?
Did Trump Jr. really get Wikileaks information before it was publicly released?
Did Gen. Flynn actually lie to the FBI?
Did Cohen travel to Prague?
Did Trump call all Mexicans rapists?
Did Trump praise white supremacists?
Did Trump say the media is the enemy of the people?
Just a short list of the MASSIVE lies propagated by the liberal media without fact-checking any of them. Yet, you still slavishly believe them.
Yeah, you just stand by while I wait to answer YOUR questions. Don’t go away, now.
@Richard Wheeler: The mental gymnastics to admit Tulsi has been unfairly attacked and is allowed to hit back, but The President doesnt, must be exhausting. You failed on the landing miserably, you simply couldnt let go of your hate for the guy that just announced the death of the head of ISIS no casualties in the dangerous mission. Credit shared with all that have our shared goal and assisted in the mission.
@Richard Wheeler:
Much love to you too, Rich!
We can disagree…but still be friends. We all need more of that.
I was chatting with a buddy of mine — not a fan of Trump — and we of course disagree on things, but we both have our own opinions and that means a lot. There’s human experience in each of our arguments, which holds more weight when you debate with someone.
I just want to see everyone form their own opinions without toeing a line given by anyone else, including a political party or news outlet or anyone…and now we have a polarized electorate that is just accusing the other of the same thing.
Democracy is important, so I hope everyone understands our current electoral system is still one of the best ways to keep rule of the country by the people. I’m all for limited reforms, as long as it enhances freedom, and doesn’t take it away.