The authoritarian left has always had a huge problem with the notion that people should be able to express their opinions freely without government intervention. But it seems as if they are getting more vocal about it lately.
In the past, leftists have reserved their anti-speech sentiments for op-eds hinting that perhaps the First Amendment goes too far in protecting the right to freedom of expression. Now, prominent figures on the left are straight out calling for government policy aimed at suppressing certain types of speech.
Of course, they do not directly admit that they want to stifle individuals who disagree with their ideas and ideologies. Instead, they couch their authoritarian protestations in a desire to weed out “misinformation” and “disinformation,” a label that applies only to folks on the right.
During a Saturday interview on CNN, failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton articulated a decidedly anti-speech position when discussing the future of social media regulation. She stressed the need for stringent content moderation on platforms like Facebook, X, and others. She argued in favor of repealing Section 230, which protects online platforms from liability for statements their users post.
“We should be, in my view, repealing something called section 230, which gave platforms on the internet immunity because they were thought to be just pass-throughs, that they shouldn’t be judged for the content that is posted,” Clinton told the host.
Clinton continued: “But we now know that that was an overly simple view. Whether it’s Facebook or Twitter or X or Instagram or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don’t moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control, and it’s not just the social and psychological effects, it’s real harm.”
“If they don’t moderate the content, we lose total control.”
— The Rabbit Hole (@TheRabbitHole84) October 6, 2024
— Hillary Clinton pic.twitter.com/TeJ7qaIeaS
That’s right, folks. Hillary Clinton went on national television and argued for the government and its allies to have “total control” over online speech. I know the phrase “saying the quiet part out loud” is cliché at this point, but it definitely applies here.
But Clinton isn’t the only Democrat to publicly come out against free speech. John Kerry, another failed presidential candidate and climate grifter, complained about the First Amendment protecting speech he perceives as harmful. He made the comments during a panel at the World Economic Forum in New York City in late September.
“But look, if people go to only one source, and the source they go to is sick and has an agenda, and they’re putting out this information, our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to just hammer it out of existence,” Kerry lamented.
But wait, there’s more!
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, who is running for vice president, claimed during an appearance on MSNBC that the First Amendment does not protect “hate speech” or “misinformation.”
“There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy,” he said.
California’s state legislature recently passed a measure banning political “deepfakes” on social media. The legislation is currently facing legal action from satire site The Babylon Bee and others arguing that it represents a violation of the First Amendment. In fact, a federal judge has already slapped an injunction on the measure:
These are obviously not isolated incidents. They are each part of a coordinated effort to reshape the landscape of free speech in America. These individuals wish to change how American society views expression and the government’s role in regulating it. This represents nothing less than a desire for control over public discourse and an assault on our natural rights.
The implications of these positions could be far-reaching – especially if Democrats get their way. They suggest an overall strategy aimed at tightening control over digital speech, paving the way for government overreach into private discourse.
The authoritarian left has become increasingly brazen in their calls to empower the government with greater authority over speech. They are essentially engaged in an expansive campaign to regulate online dialogue in the no-so-distant future.
For prominent figures like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to publicly proclaim this desire indicates that they no longer see as much of a need to hide their intentions. Perhaps they are more confident in their ability to persuade the public to relinquish the right to freedom of expression. Or maybe they believe they can simply force through legislation or executive orders aimed at controlling speech if they win the White House in November. If they do manage to pick up the White House and both chambers of Congress, we might just witness the further erosion of the First Amendment.
