Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,
Part of the main duty of OffGuardian is to troll through the masses of media output and try and pick up patterns. Sometimes the patterns are subtle, a gentle urging behind the paragraphs. Sometimes theyâre more like a sledgehammer to the face.
This has been face-hammer week. In fact, itâs been a face-hammer year.
From âflatten the curveâ to âthe new normalâ to âthe great resetâ, itâs not been hard to spot the messaging going on since the start of the âpandemicâ. And that distinct lack of disguise has carried over into other topics, too.
We pointed out, a few days ago, the sudden over-use of the phrase âdomestic terrorismâ preparing us for what is, almost certainly, going to be a truly horrendous piece of new legislation once Biden is in office.
Well, the buzz-phrase doing the rounds in the wake of Donald Trump being banned from the internet is âthe new definition of free speechââŠand variations on that theme.
Firstly, and papers on both sides of the Atlantic want to be very clear about this, Donald Trump being banned simultaneously from every major social network is not in any way inhibiting his free speech.
Indeed none of the tens of thousands of people banned from twitter et al. have had their free speech infringed either. Neither have any of the proprietors â or users â of the Parler app which the tech giants bullied out of existence.
Free Speech is totally intact no matter how many people are banned or deplatformed, the media all agree on that (even the allegedly pro-free speech think tanks).
They also agree that maybeâŠit shouldnât be. Maybe âfree speechâ is too dangerous in our modern era, and needs a ânew definitionâ.
Thatâs what Ian Dunt writing in Politics.co.uk thinks, anyway, arguing itâs time to have a âgrown-up debateâ about free speech.
The Financial Times agrees, asking about the âlimits of free-speech in the internet eraâ.
Thomas Edsall, in the New York Times, wonders aloud if Trumpâs âliesâ have made free speech a âthreat to democracyâ.
The Conversation, a UK-based journal often at the cutting edge of the truly terrifying ideas, has three different articles about redefining or limiting free speech, all published within 4 days of each other.
Thereâs Free speech is not guaranteed if it harms others, a drab piece of dishonest apologia which argues Trump wasnât silenced, because he could make a speech which the media would coverâŠwithout also mentioning that the media has, en masse, literally refused to broadcast several of Trumpâs speeches in the last couple of months.
The conclusion could have been written by an algorithm analysing The Guardianâs twitter feed:
the suggestion Trump has been censored is simply wrong. It misleads the public into believing all âfree speechâ claims have equal merit. They do not. We must work to ensure harmful speech is regulated in order to ensure broad participation in the public discourse that is essential to our lives â and to our democracy.
Then thereâs Free speech in America: is the US approach fit for purpose in the age of social media?, a virtual carbon copy of the first, which states:
The attack on the Capitol exposed, in stark terms, the dangers of disinformation in the digital age. It provides an opportunity to reflect on the extent to which certain elements of Americaâs free speech tradition may no longer be fit for purpose.
And finally, my personal favourite, Why âfree speechâ needs a new definition in the age of the internet and Trump tweets in which author Peter Ives warns of the âweaponising of free speechâ and concludes:
Trumpâs angry mob was not just incited by his single speech on Jan. 6, but had been fomenting for a long time online. The faith in reason held by Mill and Kant was premised on the printing press; free speech should be re-examined in the context of the internet and social media.
Ives clearly thinks heâs enlightened and liberal and educated, after all he drops references to Kant AND Mills (thatâs right TWO famous philosophers), but heâs really not. Heâs just an elitist arguing working class people are too dumb to be allowed to speak, or even hear ideas that might get them all riled-up and distract them from their menial labour.
To season these stale ideas with a sprinkling of fear-porn, NBC News is reporting that the FBI didnât report their âconcernsâ over possible violence at the Capitol, because they were worried about free speech. (See, if the FBI hadnât been protecting peopleâs free speech, that riot may not have happened!)
And on top of all of that, thereâs the emotional manipulation angle, where authors pretend to be sad or exasperated or any of the emotions they used to have.
In the Irish Independent, Emma Kelly says that âfree speechâ doesnât include âhate speechâ (sheâs never exactly clear what part of âgo home in peace loveâ was hate speech though).
In The Hill, Joe Ferullo is almost in tears that the first amendment has been ruined by the right-wing press continuously âshouting fire in a crowded theatreâ, citing the famous Oliver Wendell Holmes quote, which so many use to âqualifyâ the idea of free speech, without realising it hands over power to destroy it completely.
Up until you can show me the hard-and-fast legal definitions of âshoutâ, âfireâ, âcrowdedâ and âtheatreâ, this open-ended qualification is nothing but a blank canvas, free to be interpreted as loosely â or stringently â as any lawmaker or judiciary feels is necessary.
As an example:
Twitter is certainly bigger and more populated than a theatre, and spreading anti-vaccination/anti-war/pro-Russia/âCovid denialâ news [delete as appropriate] is certainly going to cause more panic than one single building being on fire. Isnât it?
Itâs this potential abuse of incredibly loose terminologies which will be used to âredefineâ free speech.
âOffensiveâ, âmisinformationâ, âhate speechâ and others will be repeated. A lot.
Expressions which have no solid definition under law, and are already being shown to mean nothing to the media talking heads who repeat them ad nauseum.
If âgo home in peace and loveâ, can become âinciting violenceâ, absolutely everything can be made to mean absolutely anything.
The more they âredefineâ words, the further we move into an Orwellian world where all meaning is entirely lost.
And what would our newly defined âfree speechâ really mean in such a world?
When I landed that left hook on Bob’s jaw, I didn’t limit his speech, I merely limited his food intake for a couple of days
What part about “Free Speech” don’t they understand! Free Speech is exactly what it say’s it is! FREE SPEECH! For those who don’t like the way free Speech is going, let me explain it for you in plain English! You have the right under our Constitution to say what ever you want to! What scares you about that? Why would anybody be afraid of another’s opinion and statement? If you disagree, fine! You have the right to tell it your way, NOT suppress it if it don’t fit your narrative! How would there be 2 or more sides to every story! Silencing free speech is the first thing that a Communist, Dictator, Terrorist run country does! Then burn all the Books, destroy all the Statues, purge all the non believers, close down all the Schools, Churches and free movement! If you like how they do that, then I suggest you move from the U.S.A. to a place that is already doing exactly as you want! We would be happy to help you move!