The Aspen Institute has issued the results of its much heralded 16-person Commission on Information Disorder on how to protect the public from misinformation. The commission on disinformation and “building trust” was partially headed by Katie Couric who is still struggling with her own admission that she edited an interview to remove controversial statements by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The Aspen recommendations however are a full-throated endorsement of systems of censorship.
The findings and recommendations are found in an 80-page report on how to combat “disinformation” and “misinformation,” which are remarkably ill-defined but treated as a matter of “we know when we see it.” From the outset, however, the Commission dismissed the long-standing free speech principle that the solution to bad speech is better speech, not censorship. The problem is that many today object to allowing those with opposing views to continue to speak or others continue to listen to them. The Commission quickly tosses the free speech norm to the side:
“The biggest lie of all, which this crisis thrives on, and which the beneficiaries of mis- and disinformation feed on, is that the crisis itself is uncontainable. One of the corollaries of that mythology is that, in order to fight bad information, all we need is more (and better distributed) good information. In reality, merely elevating truthful content is not nearly enough to change our current course.”
In addition to Couric, the Commission was headed by Color of Change President Rashad Robinson and Chris Krebs, former director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. Robinson was also a notable choice since he has been one of the most outspoken advocates of censorship. While some of us have been denouncing the expanding system of censorship by companies like Facebook, Robinson was threatening boycotts if the companies do not “rein in” those considered racists or spreaders of misinformation.
The Commission also includes Prince Harry who has referred to free speech protections under the First Amendment as “bonkers.”
Much of the report seems more aspirational in recommendations like “endorsing efforts that focus on exposing how historical and current imbalances of power, access and equity are manufactured and propagated with mis- and disinformation — and on promoting community-led solutions to forging social bonds.”
The Commission also appears to endorse the movement against “objectivity” and “both sideism” in the media: “Commissioners also discussed the need to adjust journalistic norms to avoid false equivalencies between lies and empirical fact in the pursuit of ‘both sides’ and ‘objectivity,’ particularly in areas of public health, civil rights, or election outcomes.”
Former New York Times Magazine reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones was one of the journalists who pushed the New York Times to denounce its own publication and promise to curtail columns in the future. In so doing, she railed against those who engage in what she called “even-handedness, both sideism” journalism. Likewise, Stanford Communications Professor Emeritus Ted Glasser has publicly called for an end of objectivity in journalism as too constraining for reporters in seeking “social justice.” In an interview with The Stanford Daily, Glasser insisted that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.” He rejected the notion that journalism is based on objectivity and said that he views “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.” Thus, “journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.”
However, the most chilling aspect of the report is the obvious invitation for greater forms of censorship. It calls for the government to become involved in combatting misinformation, the scourge of free speech and an invitation for state controls over speech. Ironically, there is no need for such direct government involvement when social media companies are acting as the equivalent of a state media in the censorship of public debates.
The import of the recommendations are abundantly clear:
“Reducing Harms: Mitigating the worst harms of mis- and disinformation, such as threats to public health and democratic participation, and the targeting of communities through hate speech and extremism.
-
Comprehensive Federal Approach: Establish a comprehensive strategic approach to countering disinformation and the spread of misinformation, including a centralized national response strategy, clearly-defined roles and responsibilities across the Executive Branch, and identified gaps in authorities and capabilities.
-
Public Restoration Fund: Create an independent organization, with a mandate to develop systemic misinformation countermeasures through education, research, and investment in local institutions.
-
Civic Empowerment: Invest and innovate in online education and platform product features to increase users’ awareness of and resilience to online misinformation.
-
Superspreader Accountability: Hold superspreaders of mis- and disinformation to account with clear, transparent, and consistently applied policies that enable quicker, more decisive actions and penalties, commensurate with their impacts — regardless of location, or political views, or role in society.
-
Amendments to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996: 1) Withdraw platform immunity for content that is promoted through paid advertising and post promotion; and 2) Remove immunity as it relates to the implementation of product features, recommendation engines, and design.”
The ill-defined terms of “misinformation” and “disinformation” become more menacing when those terms are used as the basis for a government and private sector system to take “decisive actions and penalties” against those who spread such information. The Commission is more focused on harm than the specific definition:
“Disinformation inflames long-standing inequalities and undermines lived experiences for historically targeted communities, particularly Black/African American communities. False narratives can sow division, hamper public health initiatives, undermine elections, or deliver fresh marks to grifters and profiteers, and they capitalize on deep-rooted problems within American society. Disinformation pours lighter fluid on the sparks of discord that exist in every community.”
In the end, the Commission dismisses the classic defense of free speech while calling for greater regulation of speech to address “deep-rooted problems in American society.” However, the deepest rooted problems in our society include the denial of free speech. Indeed, the First Amendment is premised on the belief that this right is essential to protecting the other freedoms in the Constitution. It is the right that allows people to challenge their government and others on electoral issues, public health issues, and other controversies.
The Aspen report is the latest evidence of a building anti-free speech movement in the United States. It is a movement that both rejects core free speech values but also seeks to normalize censorship. In the last few years, we have seen an increasing call for private censorship from Democratic politicians and liberal commentators. Faculty and editors are now actively supporting modern versions of book-burning with blacklists and bans for those with opposing political views. Columbia Journalism School Dean Steve Coll has denounced the “weaponization” of free speech, which appears to be the use of free speech by those on the right. So the dean of one of the premier journalism schools now supports censorship.
Free speech advocates are facing a generational shift that is now being reflected in our law schools, where free speech principles were once a touchstone of the rule of law. As millions of students are taught that free speech is a threat and that “China is right” about censorship, these figures are shaping a new and more limited role for free speech in society.
This is why conservatives fight to limit government, and maintain strong, individual Constitutional rights.
One of the aspects of totalitarianism is a lack of free speech. People abusing power cannot have their critics pointing out wrongs.
The Left is a totalitarian movement. Case in point would be the persecution of a little old Christian cake baker, who won’t custom bake anything regarding Halloween, transgender, or gay weddings, which to him are religious. He’ll sell anyone anything ready made out of the case, but he won’t use his artistic talent to custom create anything that troubles his conscience. That should not be controversial. After all, I wouldn’t expect a far Left Democrat to be keen on creating a cake to celebrate Donald Trump or Kyle Rittenhouse or the 2nd Amendment, although all of that support is protected free speech. Compelled expression or speech is anathema to individual freedom. Forcing any artist to custom create a work against his conscience and his will is an act that belonged in the Dark Ages, not a free America. But the Left has absolutely no problem forcing people to express far Left opinions, and they will target and destroy those who will not comply. This is how you know their totalitarian nature.
Resist the totalitarianism of the Left. Vote responsibly.
“The Left is a totalitarian movement.”
That is the truth though the left might take it as insulting. They do not want to look at themselves as being authoritarians. They want people to think of themselves as classical liberals, but they are the opposite. They represent the worst dictatorships of the twentieth century and are now aligned with China, engaging in suppression of speech and state slavery.
You are unfortunately quite right, S Meyer.
This is not just an American problem—those wishing to run the world are pushing their totalitarian agendas aggressively worldwide (see Australia, New Zealand, Austria, etc. etc.). Christine Anderson, member of the European Parliament from Germany, warns of this, taking as her motto, “Compliance and Silence Enable Tyrants”.
Especially frightening is how the central banks are working behind the scenes to gain direct access to commercial bank accounts, eventually (after inflation destroys the value of the currency) introducing a new fiat money that is completely digital (like bitcoin), then controlling individual and business accounts along the lines of the CCP’s social credit system, so they can control how the teeming masses use their money (“behave or we shut your account down”). Already the first steps of removing the barrier between the central bank and the citizens’ individual accounts has started (previously, the central bank [the Fed] only dealt directly with the commercial banks, which in tern dealt with the individual accounts). For detailed background info understandably explained, see John Titus’ YouTube channel called “BestEvidence” for informative videos. Highly recommended!!
The central banks are not interested in the welfare of individual countries let alone their citizens, they are only interested in accumulation of financial power and the financial health of the super-rich..
What I was trying to say in my post is that I lived in Vietnam for three years from 2018 until 2021, where are the communist government uses these exact rules to control their country and ensure adherence to very conservative values.
So initially, the Socialist/Communist people who are backing the Aspen Institute will be very pleased when their ideas are codified into law.
But history tells us that the new government which will evolve will use every bit of their power to take control of every aspect of people’s lives, and that will eventually be a very restrictive conservative government.
Ironic, eh?
If the Aspen Institute had any power, we never would have learned that the Steele Dossier was false, paid for by Hillary Clinton, that Hunter Biden’s laptop story was real, that the US funded dangerous gain of function research on viruses in China, or that SARS-CoV2 likely originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. We never would have learned about China’s coverup that the outbreak happened months before Chinese whistleblowers alerted the world, or its culpability in its origin.
Look at how often such truthful stories were censored in social media, and how Google search engine results were tailored to bury them.
You can’t find the truth in a library if the librarian has all the reference material locked away in the basement.
It should be unconstitutional for people to take it upon themselves to make decisions willy-nilly that aren’t theirs to make, with a provision for
for the affected parties to sue those who made the unlawful decision. Who can make what decisions should be clearly spelled out.
Watchers of the “History” Channel (where history is often a casualty of the prevailing agendae) may recall the series in which the Aspen Institute was classified as a “secret society” – could even be The Illuminati.
Liberals who support these policies are in for a rude shock.
The Aspen Institute is essentially copying the laws of communist Vietnam where I lived for the past 3 years.
Some Vietnamese people fuel that these policies infringe on their human rights it was a great place to be an expat, because the conservative government there uses these policies to create a very orderly and safe society
Seriously? There’s no way to edit a comment using the app?
Or online? That really sucks
“edit a comment”
That’s a premium service. You have to pay for it. This one — the one you’re griping about — is *free*.
Thanks for that Sam.
I was ignorant
given the number times people like this have been wrong the past 4years, it would have been nice to see some semblance of humility, instead we get another dose of hubris. What will it take for these morons to re-assess their righteousness?
What would it take for a self-righteous narcissist or sociopath to become a compassionate altruist?
If an angel unshackles a devil, the devil will want to turn around and put the shackles on the angel.
Those people seems to forget that it is a Bill of Rights, not suggestions
If there really is a fire, then yes.
If the government becomes tyrannical, then yes.
If a burglar breaks into your house, then yes.
So it all depends on facts and circumstances, and the application of the law. Hence the arena for discussion and disagreement.
We have a right to speak the truth as we see it.
If the truth as we see it seems racist to some people, then that is their problem.
So, are you catching the drift? They’re all about “social justice,” not freedom. In short, they are wannabe dictators.
The old strategy of “divide and conquer”. Get people riled up about different social classes, races, genders, political leanings, etc., and distract people with pandemic scare tactics so their emotions run high and thus their intelligence runs low. Then, while they are distracted and in fear for their lives about a disease that in people with good immune systems can be knocked out rapidly using non-vaxxine existing and proven medications, and mess up the financial system so their money becomes worthless and they must depend on the “benevolent” government, which is pushing social compliance as an exercise for ramping up authoritarianism.
They hunt for racists in politically correct America just
like they hunted for witches in medieval Europe.
It’s kind of cringy and embarrassing, actually.
What is it that makes people racist, anyway?
What they think? What about freedom of conscience?
What they believe? What about freedom of belief?
What they express? What about freedom of expression.
Who they associate with? What about freedom of association?
It makes no sense that you could end-up being considered a bad person, even a political criminal,
for doing what you have a right to do.
People have a right to do the things that make them racists (in
the OPINION of some people). These racist-hunters operate on irrational
definitions of what racism and racist are.
Would criticizing a minority for committing a crime be considered racist
under these Orwellian, racist-hunting committees? That’s scary.
Are people to be punished just because of opinions and definitions that could be wrong?
Now, THAT is bonkers.
This Orwellian nonsense needs to stop.
Aw, C’mon !! All this decisiveness serves to reinforce deeply felt individual biases . . . and helps to keep the various media rolling in the dough !
I have a right to shout “FIRE!” in a crowded theater, to advocate the overthrow of our government and to threaten others with death. Or do I?
Pfezer, Bill Gates, Dr Fauci ( If you can call him Dr.), Klaus Shwab, etc., they all have a right to shout “FIRE!” in a crowded theater, to say they are overthrowing of our government and to put others to death, etc..
So what is anyone doing about it?
“The Commission also include Prince Harry who has referred to free speech protections under the First Amendment as “bonkers.””
Prince Harry is a result of too much interbreeding.
A friend who is an inveterate royal watcher opines that Harry’s father will eventually banish him and his wife to the outer darkness once enjoyed by the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. Perhaps without any royal monikers.
Progressives ARE the Misinformation spreaders. Just watch MSNBC and CNN’s coverage of the Rittenhouse trial for an example. The Clinton bought Fake Russian Collusion hoax was spread and is STILL believed by a lot of these misinformation spreaders. Covid misinformation came directly from Flip flopping phony Fauci for the last 2 years. We have had enough of Progressives lies.
A blueprint for authoritarians by grifters.
The constitution does not give boards, commissions, and bureaus the authority to decide
what can and cannot be said. As individuals, we can decide that for ourselves.
It’s our choice, after all.
If they don’t want their organs of reproduction controlled,
then they shouldn’t want our organs of speech controlled, either.
I’m going to cancel my subscription to the Wall Street Journal. They publish false narratives about Joseph Biden every day.
You should. It seems you would rather be lied to by WAPO or NYT. Good little Comrade!!! I bet you think Joseph Rosenbaum was a hero too…
That’s really funny. Name one.
Anonymous:
Would you please give an example of a false story the WSJ has published about Joe Biden?