While the government’s denials and deflections are insulting to the citizens they purport to represent, we must remain focused on their aim: they appealed Doughty’s order because they oppose constitutional restraints on their control of information. We would hope that requiring the government to obey the Constitution would be uncontroversial; now, it may signify whether the rule of law still stands in the United States.
The oral arguments revealed the government's three-part strategy: deny, deflect, and defend.
At the hearing, government defendants maintained that plaintiffs have manufactured the case.
Either government actors colluded with Big Tech to suppress Americans' free speech rights or they did not.
Journalists including Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger, and Alex Berenson have detailed the "Censorship industrial complex," the entangled web of government agencies, NGOs, and private-public partnerships that seek to control the free flow of information.
At one point, they defended government agencies' right to issue health advisories that say "The vaccines work or smoking is dangerous." They argued, "There's nothing unlawful about the government's use of the bully pulpit." That reasoning was uncontroversial, but it was not responsive to Judge Doughty's order.
Like the issue of the government's "Use of the bully pulpit," restricting Russian operatives' speech is unrelated to Judge Doughty's order.
While the government's denials and deflections are insulting to the citizens they purport to represent, we must remain focused on their aim: they appealed Doughty's order because they oppose constitutional restraints on their control of information.
https://brownstone.org/articles/deny-deflect-defend-the-censors-strategy-on-display/
No comments:
Post a Comment