In a typical social media post last month, Donald Trump expressed his desire to jail former U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and members of the congressional select committee investigating the riot, insurrection, about the peaceful demonstration on January 6 or the FBI. false flag operation (choose your narrative). It’s one of a long series of posts in which the former president and 2024 Republican candidate has touted tactics usually reserved for third-world strongmen.
Most recently, the judge in the case involving Trump’s cash payments to adult actress Stormy Daniels placed him under a gag order “after repeatedly targeting the judge’s daughter in social media posts,” according to United States today. Not long ago, Trump said he would tell Russia to do “whatever the hell it wants” to NATO member countries that don’t pay their bills. And, of course, he continues to falsely claim that the 2020 election was stolen.
All of this is widely reported, but I expect many readers already have their computers so they can write angry letters to the editor. Sorry, I’ve heard all the excuses, “what do you think” and alternative explanations. America’s two major tribes no longer agree on much, and there is little hope that they will find common ground on Trump. But they should agree on this: He has demolished most of the norms surrounding the presidency.
Channeling Carly Simon’s song (“You’re so vain, I bet you think this song is about you”), I’d note that this column isn’t really about that narcissistic man who has captured the public’s attention for more than eight years. years. It’s about misinformation and what the nation should do about it. In their frustration with Trump’s truth-bending, norm-breaking behavior, many Trump critics are willing to promote policies that would seem inappropriate even in a democracy.
In a New York Times In an article last month, Jim Rutenberg and Steven Lee Myers note that, after the unfortunate events of January 6, “a groundswell was built in Washington to curb the onslaught of lies that had fueled the onslaught to the peaceful transfer of power.” Blaming the spread of misinformation for Trump’s success, they lament that “the Biden administration has largely abandoned initiatives that could be interpreted as stifling political discourse.” They expressed concern from the political opposition about a broader role for the government in protecting elections from disinformation.
It seems so reasonable at first glance. Trump and his MAGA movement have actually spread misinformation (the former false, the latter maliciously so) to keep the former president in power – and now to help him return to the Oval Office. But the First Amendment is clear (“Congress shall make no law…”). There is absolutely no way government officials can reduce either of these two types of misinformation without crushing the free speech protections that are inherent to the foundation of our nation.
The basic rule of thumb in America is that people can pretty much say or write whatever they choose. Defamation law provides a form of appeal to civil courts, but alleged victims have a fairly large hurdle to overcome. This is how it should be. Let’s take an example of why even the best-intentioned governments’ anti-disinformation efforts would end up absurd and abusive.
Many progressives believe that man-made climate change is as true as the existence of gravity. Some conservatives believe this is not true and provide alternative explanations and data. If the government sought to crack down on mis/disinformation about climate change it would inevitably end up (depending on who controls the government) censoring ideas that run counter to the traditional view that human-caused global warming is an undisputed fact. Even if it were, this would chill the discourse and silence legitimate studies that questioned the more questionable aspects of the theory.
Of course, some social media platforms have likely followed suit, which explains why many Republican lawmakers have supported efforts to expand government control over social media. But those are private platforms. The government is not doing censorship. Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter (now X) shows how easily private companies can change their policies. In contrast, official policy in federal or state agencies rarely changes over decades.
Increasingly, progressives are abandoning their (supposed) long-standing commitment to free speech. I previously mentioned another one New York Times article that found a bevy of constitutional law scholars who are “beginning to question how we have come to think about the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech.” They find such protections “inadequate for our age” – and that political era is defined by Trump and his willingness to promote conspiracies and scams.
Americans fixate on changing laws to improve outcomes. But we cannot solve a political problem that has eroded democratic norms by passing new laws that also erode cherished norms of free speech. This approach is decidedly Trumpian. Rutenberg and Myers’ article worries that “Trump’s allies are winning the war against disinformation.” Well, it’s time to fight back through better information and better discourse, not by giving government the power to arbitrate these debates.
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.