Goldsmith is an attorney and former law partner, adjunct law professor, superior court judge, San Diego city attorney, California state legislator and mayor of Poway.
Despite our current deep divisions, one thing Americans should unite behind is the freedom our nation was created to protect. But today some of our precious rights are under assault, and our nation is divided on whether those rights are even worthwhile.
What is most disturbing is the incremental attack on free speech. The onslaught has been seen on college campuses where speakers have been disinvited or drowned out to ostensibly “protect” us from hearing their views. People have reportedly been harassed and physically attacked for expressing their views. Social media platforms have canceled users, including a former president.
This “cancel” culture has caused people to lose their jobs or suffer other consequences for saying the wrong thing about public policies.
As a result, there is today a chilling effect on speech as many people are scared to express their views on controversial issues.
Up to this point, much of the censorship has come from abusive tactics in the private sector, not directly from the government.
However, that may change.
According to a Pew Research Center poll conducted July 26-Aug. 8, nearly half of U.S. adults (48 percent) say the government should take steps to restrict “false information” online even if it means losing free speech.
This is up from 39 percent in 2018.
The same survey found that 65 percent of Democrats and those who lean Democratic and 28 percent of Republicans and those who lean Republican favor such government restriction of “false information.”
This idea of government censorship is a dangerous trend that could impact our ability to get uncensored news and diverse opinions and could ultimately extend beyond online communications.
Those open to the idea of government censoring so-called “false information” should consider some basic questions.
For example, what is “false information”? Is it something that conflicts with government policies or statements? Maybe something purportedly “debunked” by a favored source? Or is it something just politically incorrect or offensive to a preferred group?
Who would deem information “false”? Government bureaucrats? Politicians? The loudest mob? Or the “Thought Police” as in George Orwell’s novel “1984"?
By restricting communications to what some government authoritarian says is true, how could we challenge government actions, debate issues, argue for reforms, raise new ideas or even reach the truth?
Admittedly, it is often difficult today to decipher truth from fiction. We are bombarded with information through electronic media. To find truth, we need to be skeptical and inquisitive and not simply accepting of what we read or hear.
But having government do this for us is not the answer.
“We simply never want government to be in a position to favor or disfavor particular viewpoints,” American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony Romero wrote in 2017. “And the fact is, government officials — from the local to the national — are more apt to suppress the speech of individuals or groups who disagree with government positions.”
Where government gets censorship power, the risk is to all rights and our freedom.
“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go,” President Harry Truman warned, “and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”
The right of free speech is not about whether we agree with what people say. It is about the right to say it. And if it is taken from one group, eventually we will all lose it.
In fact, the ACLU has historically supported free speech rights of groups it vehemently opposes. “Not all speech is morally equivalent,” Romero wrote in 2017, “but the airing of hateful speech allows people of good will to confront the implications of such speech and reject bigotry, discrimination and hate.”
Although the constitutional right of free speech is not absolute, the exceptions are narrow and defined. Government censorship of alleged “false information” is not one of those exceptions and would lead to demolishing free speech.
“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter,” President George Washington said way back in 1783.
Our freedom is not something that we can count on to always be there. We need to protect it, fight for it and always be alert to threats. “Freedom is never more than one generation from extinction,” President Ronald Reagan was fond of saying.
It is disappointing that half this nation is willing to relinquish our free speech rights without a fight. It is encouraging, however, that the other half will not.
"freedom" - Google News
August 26, 2021 at 12:13AM
https://ift.tt/3ynPd7a
Opinion: Freedom of speech is too precious to relinquish - The San Diego Union-Tribune
"freedom" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2VUAlgg
https://ift.tt/2VYSiKW
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Opinion: Freedom of speech is too precious to relinquish - The San Diego Union-Tribune"
Post a Comment