Open/Close Menu وکیل | مشاوره رایگان | وکالت | وکیل آنلاین

Reading relentless attacks on freedom of expression has become depressing in the Washington Post and other newspapers. The anti-freedom of speech movement has been hailed by Democratic leaders. Including President Joe BidenAs well as academics who now claimChina was rightIn the case of censorship, however, the Time Magazine column by National Reporter Charlotte Alter It was still shocking how the main anti-freedom of expression views became. Alter condemns freedom of expression essentially as an “obsession” with a white man.

What is remarkable about the column is Alter’s apparent confusion about why someone like Mask even cares about the freedom of expression of others. He suggests that the mask is actually to spend money to restore freedom of expression instead of issues of social welfare or immoral justice.

He suggests that defending freedom of expression is a disgusting extravagance, like buying a Faberge egg.

Why does the mask care so much about this? “Why does a man who has pushed the boundaries of electric vehicle production and violated commercial space flight restrictions care about who can say what on Twitter?”

Not surprisingly, the answer is about race and privilege. Alter points to Jason Goldman, who was a key figure in shaping Twitter’s censorship policies before joining the Obama administration. “Freedom of expression has become the obsession of men and white tech elites who” prefer to go back to the way it was, “Goldman said.

Alter also cites Fred Turner, a professor of communications at Stanford University, who explains that freedom of expression is just a dominant obsession with the elite. [and] It seems to be much more obsessive among men.

In arguing in favor of censorship, Alter makes strong use of historical revisionism, claiming that

“Freedom of expression” in the 21st century means something very different from what it was in the 18th century, when its founders enshrined it in the constitution. The right to express what you want without being imprisoned is not the same as the right to disseminate false information to millions on a corporate platform. This slight difference seems to have been lost to some technical wizards who see any limitation as the enemy of innovation.

I’m lost too.

Censorship has always been based on the notion that underlying speech was inaccurate or harmful. Calling it “misinformation” does not fundamentally change its motivation or impact. What Alter calls the “brother of technology obsession” was the obsession of fryers.

Is change Confusing the values ​​of freedom of expression with the logic of the First Complement. For years, anti-freedom activists have rejected free speech opposition to social media censorship, stressing that the First Amendment applies only to the government, not to private companies. This distinction has always been an unscrupulous attempt to escape the consequences of speech controls, whether by government or corporations.

The First Amendment was never the exclusive definition of freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is considered by many of us as a human right. The first amendment addresses only one resource to limit it. Freedom of expression can be curtailed by private companies as well as government agencies. This threat is exacerbated when politicians openly use companies to indirectly achieve what they cannot achieve directly.

Key characters practiced freedom of speech, preaching what they preached to challenge friends and foes alike. After playing a vital role in our independence, Thomas Payne did nothing but harass Framers with his words, including John Adams, who called him a “violent mass.”

However, freedom of expression was a defining value for the editors (despite Adams’s subsequent attacks on the right). It was considered as the growth page of democracy. As Benjamin Franklin stated in a letter dated July 9, 1722: “Without freedom of thought, there is no such thing as wisdom. “And there is no such thing as public freedom without freedom of expression.”

The same anti-freedom of speech voices were heard at the time telling citizens to fear for freedom of expression. This was seen as a siren invitation to tyranny. Franklin stated:

“In those miserable countries where one cannot call one’s own language one’s own language, one can seldom call something one’s own. Whoever overthrows the freedom of a nation must dominate freedom of expression. “Something terrible for public traitors.”

However, Alter assures readers that this is only because of the mask’s ignorance and misunderstanding of why censorship is a natural and good thing:

“Technology giants often have different perceptions of speech than the rest of the world, because most of them are trained as engineers, not as writers or readers, and their lack of humanities education may make them less attuned to the social and political differences of speech.”

Alter’s college humanities education seems to allow him to see the “subtleties” that escape the rest of us, including some of us who are “not trained as engineers.”

For registration only, Alter holds a degree in English Language and Literature / Harvard. Mask holds a bachelor’s degree not in engineering but a bachelor of arts degree in physics and a bachelor’s degree in economics (both from the University of Pennsylvania). None of these documents provide any basis for claiming superior knowledge of the constitution or human rights.

In fact, no evidence provides such a decisive authority. Some anti-freedom of expression in our history have a degree in law. Evidence guarantees neither intellect nor understanding. Many framers were not legally trained, but had an innate sense of commitment to freedom of expression.

James Madison warned us to be more wary of such subtle arguments: “There is more to summing up the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent aggression of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

As Time, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and other media outlets align themselves with the anti-freedom movement, the struggle for citizens for this essential right is more important than ever. There is nothing in this movement and its consequences for this country.

Write a comment:


Your email address will not be published.