CALIFORNIA PROPOSING GOV'T TAKE OVER 'FAKE NEWS' FIGHT, Plans
to mandate state plan for social media censorship efforts, by Bob Unruh,
9/21/18, WND.
There’s no doubt California is a land of extremes; just look at the weather, wildfires, deserts and Hollywood. Or watch Maxine Waters and see if she can address anyone without shouting “impeach, impeach, impeach” President Trump.
Barry Brownstein said
legislators already have approved S.B. 1424, and it only needs the signature of
Gov. Jerry Brown.
It would require the establishment of an advisory board that would include
Justice Department representatives, social media providers, civil liberties
groups and First Amendment scholars.
“It is so difficult to draw
a clear line of separation between the abuse and the wholesome use of the
press, that as yet we have found it better to trust the public judgment, rather
than the magistrate, with the discrimination between truth and falsehood. And
hitherto the public judgment has performed that office with
wonderful correctness.”
Now there’s an extreme move afoot to
have the government take control of the fight against “fake news” on social
media.
The plan is to have a state “model” for
social media companies to follow. Likely whether they want to or not.
The proposal was reported by the Foundation for Economic Education. They would study “the spread of false
information” on social media and create a
“model strategic plan” to “mitigate the spread of false information.”
“It’s hard to imagine those voting for
the bill were motivated by good intentions. In any case, good intentions are
not enough. Is it hard to imagine the results of the law will be censorship of
views that politicians disagree with and views critical of politicians?”
Brownstein wrote.
“Most likely, Californians are not
concerned about ‘fact-checking’ content like ‘a mile is 5290 feet’ or an appeal
to form a flat Earth Facebook group; such content poses no threat to entrenched
interests. Instead, ‘fact-checking’ will be deployed against those who express
doubt, for example, about climate change, vaccine safety, or ‘educating’
children about gender dysphoria.”
He pointed out that the First Amendment
doesn’t provide “for government judging the validity of speech either directly
or through mandated ‘fact-checking.'”
And there already are laws to address
slander or defamation. “There have always been ‘false reports,’ but Thomas
Jefferson believed in the wisdom of the public to discern the difference,”
Brownstein wrote.
Brownstein pointed out that Google
already has provided a censored search engine in China, so “they can no doubt
use their new expertise in California to keep up with the latest laws.”
At the Pacific Legal Foundation, whose lawyers routinely take on
such issues, a commentary said,
“Somewhere George Orwell is shaking his head.”
PLF said government regulation of speech
“is a slippery slope.” “Once a step is taken toward government deciding what is
‘true’ or ‘false’ or what views are ‘worthwhile’ and worthy of being shared, it
is only a matter of time until politicians with ideological agendas decide to
attempt to elevate their own views, to the detriment of individual rights and
democracy,” the legal group said.
“The cost of our own freedom of speech
depends on a tolerance of the ideas and speech of others. We ourselves are the
best judges of the merits of differing views, not the government. The last
thing we need is Sacramento politicians deciding where we can speak and what we
can say.”
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody
GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment