Alexander Meiklejohn's core claim in Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government is: "Citizens will not make wise and informed choices in elections if candidates and proponents of certain policies are restricted in their ability to communicate positions. We want an informed electorate involved in debate." To expand on that point, if citizens are expected to govern themselves, they must be able to hear ALL relevant ideas, including ones that make people uncomfortable. The point of the First Amendment, specifically on this topic, is to protect speech because democracy depends on public judgment formed through discourse and open debate. This is why restrictions on political communication aimed at candidates, media, and citizens, are so corrosive. If the public is unable to access discourse surrounding arguments and counterarguments, elections become less like freedom and more like controlled choice. Meiklejohn frames this danger as civic unfitness, famously quoting "To be afraid of ideas, any idea, is to be unfit for self-government."
In 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court heard allegations that the Biden administration pressured social media platforms to suppress conservative viewpoints and censor "misinformation" regarding COVID-19 and the 2020 presidential election; the case is titled Murthy v. Missouri. The court ultimately ruled the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue broad injunctive relief. Still, the case revealed how easily government requests and flagging mix into a public square that is privately owned but publicly steered. Though the court didn't fully conclude whether the government illegally censored speech, the case did reveal real risks in how modern speech works. Though most social media are privately owned, the government can still shape what gets removed or suppressed through behind-the-scenes pressure.
And this isn't just a hypothetical... it's reality. In August 2024, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote that senior officials in the Biden administration had repeatedly pressured Meta in 2021 to censor humor, satire, and certain COVID-19 content. According to Reuters, in July 2021, President Biden states social media platforms like Meta "are killing people" for allowing "misinformation" about COVID-19 vaccines to be posted. Following the backlash, the White House said, "the administration encouraged responsible actions to protect public health and safety when confronted with a deadly pandemic."
Now whether such claims about masks, social distancing, and the vaccines being ineffective are still up for debate amongst the public, it doesn't take away from the fact that the government and social media companies were silencing anyone that questioned their stance. Take Robert Malone for example, the acclaimed creator of the mRNA vaccine. While many people questioned the COVID vaccine because of the government's aggressive and unconstitutional way of forcing the vaccine onto the population, Malone also questioned its efficacy and safety. Malone stated that, "He's concerned that the proper, usual precautions haven't' been taken with the mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 and doesn't think people should be required to take them." Malone's statement would seem reasonable to most people, given that he was right about precautions for mRNA vaccine testing being ignored, but his questioning of the vaccine led to a MSM smear campaign. Don't believe me? Search Robert Malone on Google and read out some of the top headlines about him.
With the topic of misinformation being so relevant in today's environment, governments from all over the world, including the U.S, are making it their job to "combat misinformation" through means of censorship and even incarceration. If you want to see what "managed information" evolves into, lets highlight some governments that treat political speech as threat rather than a necessity:
- China: Freedom House describes China as having the WORST conditions for internet freedom, with users facing "severe legal and extralegal repercussions" for ordinary online activity, including sharing news, discussing religion, communicating with people abroad, or amplifying information the government dislikes.
- Russia: Since invading Ukraine, Russia has dramatically tightened their information control. Reporters Without Borders notes that independent media have been banned, blocked, or branded "foreign agents." Similar to China, anti-government comments or posts can also lead to jail time or much harsher consequences.
These regimes illustrate the endgame of limiting political communication. Elections (if they exist) lose meaning because voters cannot compare claims, investigate wrongdoing, or organize political opposition.
Meiklejohn's argument isn't that every statement is true or every speaker is of good faith. It's that the cure for bad arguments in a democracy is more contestation, not quieter citizens. When candidates, journalists, and ordinary people are restricted, especially through government influence over media, the voters are less informed, less confident, and less capable of self-government. If we genuinely want an informed citizens involved in debate, then the ethical and constitutional burden should be on those who try to restrict free speech and justify it as combatting "misinformation and hate speech." In a functioning democracy, the public doesn't need a moderator, it needs the truth-seeking spirit of open debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment