For just about everything that has been said about the COVID-19 coronavirus, we know that the opposite has been said, too. Perhaps this sort of discrepancy should be expected with a novel virus. And, perhaps this is what is supposed to happen in an open-forum democracy. We should simply be thankful that information is not being suppressed. But wait: is it?
Unbeknownst to most people, there is actually a "Center for Countering Digital Hate" which, with cooperation from YouTube and Twitter, is deplatforming those who question the official coronavirus narrative. Here is one example:
Meanwhile, big tech is taking its own initiative to sanitize its platforms, which serve as the modern public forum, of narratives it does not support. Take, for example, the video of this COVID-19 briefing by California's Dr. Erickson, which was taken down by YouTube. As YouTube's CEO Susan Wojcicki notes, anything that goes against what the World Health Organization (WHO) says is fair game for removal:
If the extent of "online free speech" excludes not only things that can be boxed in the definition of "hate speech", but different views construed as "misinfo" about a virus, ask yourself: what else could they target in a crusade against "hate" and "misinfo"? And to what end? As we have suggested, war-related censorship is conceivable (see: No Independent Thought and the Infinitewars).
Now would be a good time to remind the public that the U.S. government once tried to draw the line at handing out flyers to protest the draft. That was over the top. Don't laugh; the U.S. Supreme Court actually upheld that view in an unanimous decision. The case was Schenck v. United States. With the ruling, such speech was deemed akin to "shouting fire in a crowded theatre". The rationale should sound familiar. After all, it produced the very line of reasoning now used to silence those who oppose the modern push for more censorship:
I wonder how many use this line without knowing where it came from; I also wonder how they would feel if they knew the same dogma was used to outlaw anti-draft protest flyers handed out by liberals and socialists - traditional leftist territory.
Anyway, the Supreme Court's "fire in a theatre" decision was only overturned in part in 1969 when, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Court decided that the government can only restrict speech that is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and "likely to incite or produce such action." Notice also how easily this threshold could be applied to include anything that might enrage people enough to motivate them to take to the streets - after all, that is how "riots" start, right? And the demonstration at Charlottesville was portrayed in exactly that framework - and investigated accordingly - although the protesters had a permit for a demonstration.
As for YouTube, despite its attempts to limit free speech, the company is generally not liable under U.S. law for the "speech" it hosts (see also: here). We can therefore assume that, in implementing its own censorship regime, the company has an urge to control the public like a government can only dream of doing. As long as social media is not treated under law as an extension of the public forum and not held to the Constitution, we need to keep these companies in check. No elite should have the power to manipulate the public to its own fancy - we must make sure all attempts to do so backfire (see: Dear YouTube and Twitter: please ban everyone). Get on it.
Unbeknownst to most people, there is actually a "Center for Countering Digital Hate" which, with cooperation from YouTube and Twitter, is deplatforming those who question the official coronavirus narrative. Here is one example:
In 48 hours both Facebook and YouTube have deleted David Icke after our report on his toxic COVID-19 misinformation.— Center for Countering Digital Hate (@CCDHate) May 2, 2020
Now we need @Instagram and @Twitter to follow suit.
800 people have signed our #DeplatformIcke open letter. Add your name here: https://t.co/BQ6RIIi6Rr pic.twitter.com/7jO3S75PB2
Meanwhile, big tech is taking its own initiative to sanitize its platforms, which serve as the modern public forum, of narratives it does not support. Take, for example, the video of this COVID-19 briefing by California's Dr. Erickson, which was taken down by YouTube. As YouTube's CEO Susan Wojcicki notes, anything that goes against what the World Health Organization (WHO) says is fair game for removal:
If the extent of "online free speech" excludes not only things that can be boxed in the definition of "hate speech", but different views construed as "misinfo" about a virus, ask yourself: what else could they target in a crusade against "hate" and "misinfo"? And to what end? As we have suggested, war-related censorship is conceivable (see: No Independent Thought and the Infinitewars).
Now would be a good time to remind the public that the U.S. government once tried to draw the line at handing out flyers to protest the draft. That was over the top. Don't laugh; the U.S. Supreme Court actually upheld that view in an unanimous decision. The case was Schenck v. United States. With the ruling, such speech was deemed akin to "shouting fire in a crowded theatre". The rationale should sound familiar. After all, it produced the very line of reasoning now used to silence those who oppose the modern push for more censorship:
"Oh, you can't say that, that would be like shouting fire in a crowded theatre!"
I wonder how many use this line without knowing where it came from; I also wonder how they would feel if they knew the same dogma was used to outlaw anti-draft protest flyers handed out by liberals and socialists - traditional leftist territory.
Anyway, the Supreme Court's "fire in a theatre" decision was only overturned in part in 1969 when, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Court decided that the government can only restrict speech that is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and "likely to incite or produce such action." Notice also how easily this threshold could be applied to include anything that might enrage people enough to motivate them to take to the streets - after all, that is how "riots" start, right? And the demonstration at Charlottesville was portrayed in exactly that framework - and investigated accordingly - although the protesters had a permit for a demonstration.
As for YouTube, despite its attempts to limit free speech, the company is generally not liable under U.S. law for the "speech" it hosts (see also: here). We can therefore assume that, in implementing its own censorship regime, the company has an urge to control the public like a government can only dream of doing. As long as social media is not treated under law as an extension of the public forum and not held to the Constitution, we need to keep these companies in check. No elite should have the power to manipulate the public to its own fancy - we must make sure all attempts to do so backfire (see: Dear YouTube and Twitter: please ban everyone). Get on it.
