Free Speech for Me - But Not for Thee

The National Science Foundation is now funding programs to create tools for censorship.

I've made no secret of the fact that I'm more than just a bit amused at the tantrums thrown by progressives over Elon Musk's acquisition and subsequent transformation of Twitter. No one on the left seemed the least bit concerned about censorship on Twitter when it was at the behest of progressive interests. It's only as Mr. Musk has made efforts to level the playing field that the wailing and gnashing of teeth has commenced.

I've also made no bones about my agnostic view of Mr. Musk as a heroic libertarian figure. I think that Musk is extremely bright, but somewhat of a loose cannon. He does, however, have an enviable record of success in other endeavors. He deserves to be taken seriously.

Despite the virtue-signaling exodus by a few since Musk's acquisition, Twitter is attracting new members in droves. Perhaps Musk will turn Twitter into a profitable company – something the previous regime was unable to do. Waving goodbye to about half of the staff seems a good start.

Yoel Roth, Twitter's former head of site integrity, recently gave an interview at a Knight Foundation forum in which he spoke about Twitter's role in censoring, under the guise of controlling “disinformation,” the discussion around several news stories that were true.

You should look this interview up. Five minutes of watching Mr. Roth discuss his role at Twitter will forever disabuse you of the notion that the big tech brain trust is notable for being either fair or enlightened. You might even conclude that they aren't particularly likely to be to be able to find their way from their heads to their fannies with their hands.

What Musk seems to get right is the disdain for censorship that is widely shared by Americans who live outside of ideological bubbles (particularly the left). It is clear that at least some of this censorship has been aided and abetted by our own government – a clear violation of the First Amendment.

Although the recently debuted and widely-panned Disinformation Governance Board of the Department of Homeland Security went down under the weight of its own hubris like a lead balloon on Jupiter, efforts by our government to circumvent the First Amendment in order to censor speech are still out there.

I recently came across a press release about a $5 million dollar grant awarded by the National Science Foundation to a consortia of public and private entities led by a group know as Hacks/Hackers along with the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering at the University of Washington. This grant was awarded to develop software that will create psychologically persuasive communication tools for individuals to use in confronting others, on social media and in conversation, over “disinformation.”

A second element in this program is the creation of an army of Wikipedia editors to enforce a predetermined and narrow view of what constitutes a “credible source” and to block dissenting views via page edits. “Credible” sources include The New York Times and Washington Post along with a few professional sites that actually are credible most of the time. Not a single centrist or conservative news outlet or institute is listed.

The initial thrust of all of this is to counter vaccine disinformation, but there are plans afoot to expand this effort to other topics.

I happen to be very much pro-vaccine. The evidence for the efficacy of most vaccines is overwhelming. But I'm absolutely not for censoring vaccine skepticism. Unlike the powers that be in regard to this issue, I trust most people to do a good job of figuring this out for themselves. Do it and avoid preventable disease. Don't do it and suffer. That's up to you.

I've had about as much as I'm going to take, sitting still anyway, of “disinformation” being used to justify censorship. Is there disinformation out there? There certainly is. There always has been and probably always will be. Not everyone in a free society exercises their freedoms wisely. Tolerating that is part of the price of freedom. It seems like a high price only until one examines the alternatives – for which there happens to be no dearth of examples in modern history.

Most of what constitutes actual disinformation (as opposed to what the government just doesn't like) is unsophisticated to the point of being silly. You'd have to be a complete idiot to fall for it (not, mind you, that there are not a fair number out there who meet this description). Disinformation, in my view, poses far less of a danger to our democracy that the governments efforts to fight it. It's an example of the cure being worse than the disease.

So here we are. Since the government has been heretofore unsuccessful in directly policing “disinformation,” something they have absolutely no business doing in the first place, they are now enlisting others to do it for them by creating a suite of persuasive tools that will encourage those with no particular expertise on a topic to confront others with whom they disagree. Backing this is an initiative to overwhelm Wikipedia with an army of censors (no particular expertise required) who will edit articles based on sources known to exhibit extreme liberal bias.

This just might be the bullet that pierces my perennially optimistic view of our future. Once you strip away the academic language, the lofty-sounding goals (after all, who wants disinformation) and the patina of altruism, what's left is dystopian. This is Orwell brought to life. It's an attempt, funded by our government with our tax dollars, to censor disfavored speech. I'd be against this even if it were fair and balanced, which it's anything but.

It's difficult for me to wrap my mind around how our government continues to get away with circumventing the First Amendment by enlisting third parties to do what they cannot – censor speech of which they disapprove.

In 1993, the late Nat Hentoff (a writer whose work I recommend) published Free Speech for Me – But not for Thee. Mr. Hentoff's journey as an observer of politics and culture took him along an unlikely path from The Village Voice to the Cato Institute and The Wall Street Journal. I understand this trajectory because I'm living it myself for many of the same reasons – and I'm far from alone.

Last week I wrote about the left's dexterity in conscripting language to control thought. They are very good at this. Viewed dispassionately, it's quite ingenious. But I have the same view of this as I do of a rattlesnake mesmerizing it's prey before striking. While I admire their efficiency in co-opting academia, government and many institutions, I'm not about to wait placidly in line for the opportunity of being the next person to be hypnotized.

Our First Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This was important enough to our founders that it's the first statement in our Bill of Rights. In a country where this is the law of the land, the government has no right to censor free speech. Enlisting others to do their dirty work for them won't fly either, at least for long.

At least I hope.

Associated Press and Idaho Press Club-winning columnist Martin Hackworth of Pocatello is a physicist, writer and retired Idaho State University faculty member who now spends his time with family, riding bicycles and motorcycles, arranging and playing music. His writing on Substack, “Howlin' at the Moon in ii-V-I” may be found at martinhackworth.substack.com. Follow him on Twitter @MartinHackworth