The Assault On Free Speech And The Relevance Of C.S. Lewis In The Modern Age
It has become politically acceptable to comment that certain types of speech are "too dangerous" to be allowed. In America? Hold on a second...
Introduction
Certain things need to fester in the mind before intelligent commentary can be made. And, “intelligent commentary” should always be the goal, right? Of course. Which is not to say that the occasional reactive outburst should be off the table-”You did what? Or, “That is the dumbest thing I ever heard! Or…”B.S.…you’re a moron.” Stuff like that. Pure, unadulterated emotion in its rawest form. But not the most erudite commentary. And, when time and emotions permit, we should always attempt to elevate the conversational level to the highest plane obtainable. Reasoned discourse. Opinions freely given, and received with agreement, controversy or disdain. It’s America, we can spout off to our heart’s content, except that opinion is no longer shared in certain, elite circles. And, that brings us to the point of this note. Free expression is under attack!
She said whatttt?
Traditionally in America, after developing our thoughts on a subject, we should be able to say whatever comes to our mind. Or just thoughtlessly pop off. Or crack-wise, maybe snark in modern parlance. Or scream in outrage, disgust or derision. Without fear of retribution or running afoul of a bureaucratic police state. We are not servants of a hive, but rather, free agents interpreting and reacting to our world, audibly or expositorially. Living in a country where this right is enshrined in our Constitution’s Bill of Rights. An Ironclad guarantee….until recently.
The activity in which I am now engaged, just letting my thoughts flow from my fingers to the screen where they are taking the form-first edit of course, in which they will ultimately be presented to you is on increasingly shaky ground. In America-I keep repeating this phrase as a token of my shock and indignation. It bothers some people that I feel free to do this. A lot. Recently James Freeman, an Opinion columnist for the Wall Street Journal penned a column entitled, “Hillary Clinton Is Worried,” discussing our former Secretary of State’s bold rhetoric decrying certain types of free speech. Freeman writes-
“We enjoy a right to express ourselves that no government can take away. This fundamental right, codified in the First Amendment to our Constitution, is also essential to a thriving, prosperous society. Without the unfettered ability to identify problems and propose solutions, civilization cannot advance.
Look around the world at governments that have denied the right to free speech and review a catalog of human deprivation and misery. Now consider how our generally open marketplace of ideas has enabled the exposure and defeat of falsehood, prejudice, superstition and, to use the politically fashionable term, misinformation. Sunshine remains the best intellectual disinfectant.
So perhaps it’s no coincidence that today the politicians who are most zealous in demanding the power to silence misinformation promoted by others have been peddling a great deal of it themselves. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was the client for a project that created perhaps the most poisonous misinformation in the history of presidential politics, continues her campaign to empower the federal government to censor communications.”
Freeman goes on to note Clinton’s recent commentary undermining of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, in a CNN interview. (If you click on the link to the article you will see where Freeman documents Clinton’s long history of dislike where common people speak their minds.)
We should be, in my view, repealing something called Section 230, which gave, you know, platforms on the internet immunity because they were thought to be just pass-throughs. That they shouldn’t be judged for the content that is posted.
But we now know that that was an overly simple view… if they don’t moderate and monitor the content we lose total control…
We need to remove the immunity from liability and we need to have guardrails. We need regulation.
Freeman notes and I concur that the most concerning thing she says regards her lament about the loss of control over what we say.
“We need guardrails against political actors seeking more control over our speech, even—perhaps especially—in cases in which they claim to be acting on behalf of our kids.”
I’ll close this piece with a quote from C.S. Lewis, philosopher theologian and Christian-themed novelist-
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
These words, penned by Lewis some seventy-five years ago, and published in a collection of essays, entitled “God in the Dock,” seem more appropriate today in light of the increasing assault-I keep using that word, because it’s the only one that truly describes the threat posed to free speech in our country, on free speech by those who have sworn to protect it. People like Hillary Clinton-as noted in this piece, John Kerry-calling it an enemy, and of course, Kamala Harris-who rarely speaks her true mind preferring to inundate us in Word Salads, but occasionally let’s slip what she’s thinking. We seem to sleep better when she’s blathering. Her true mind is a snake-pit of Marxist ideas.
I am not a big “call to arms,” sort of person. Normally. As you can see, I am moved to action on this topic and will revisit it in future notes in this blog. You can of course, take from it what you will, or just leave it.
Cheers and a good weekend to all, Dave