Opinion: When free speech becomes a weapon
Freedom in general, and freedom of speech in particular, is deeply embedded in American identity. In the age of social media, which enables the mass dissemination of false information, freedom of speech is also being dangerously weaponized by the far right.
Article content
Article content
This freedom took on an almost sacred dimension in the United States with the adoption of the First Amendment in 1791. It reads: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'
Article content
Article content
This sentence helped make the young Republic one of the freest countries in the world. Even today, across political lines, it remains a point of national pride for Americans.
Article content
Article content
However, the media landscape has changed profoundly since 1791. Some social media platform owners now exploit freedom of speech for both ideological and financial reasons, claiming to defend it against supposed censorship imposed by progressive forces.
Article content
In the 19th century, British philosopher John Stuart Mill saw the free marketplace of ideas — in other words, the absence of restrictions on speech — as the very condition for truth in a democracy. In On Liberty, he argued that truth emerges through the clash of opinions, as falsehoods are gradually pushed aside.
Article content
This vision of free speech eventually became dominant in the United States. The far right seized on it, using the First Amendment to defend some of its most abhorrent ideas in the name of this fundamental right. One of the most well-known examples took place in Skokie, a suburb of Chicago, where the city tried to ban a Nazi march. In 1977, citing the First Amendment, the Illinois Supreme Court — and then the U.S. Supreme Court, by refusing to intervene — ruled in favour of the neo-Nazi group, although the rally ultimately never happened.
Article content
Article content
There is reason to ask whether social media, capable of both protecting and undermining free speech, has changed the equation. In 2012, a massacre took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones of Infowars claimed the massacre was staged to justify greater gun control.
Article content
Sued for defamation by the parents of children killed in the shooting, Jones defended himself by invoking freedom of speech and the First Amendment, wielding them as a shield against any attempt at regulation or sanction — or rather, as a weapon in the service of lies and violence. In 2022, he was ordered to pay nearly $1.5 billion in damages to the Sandy Hook families for defamation.
Article content
Yet, even after that ruling, he continued to portray himself as a victim of censorship, illustrating the dangers of an absolutist interpretation of free speech.
Article content
In recent years, freedom of speech and social media have been put to the test by two major crises. The first was the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and the accompanying flood of disinformation. The second was the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, triggered by false claims that the presidential election had been 'stolen.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Star
25 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
Irish rap group Kneecap plays at Glastonbury despite criticism
PILTON, England (AP) — Irish-language rap group Kneecap performed to tens of thousands of people Saturday at the Glastonbury Festival despite criticism by British politicians and a terror charge for one of the trio. Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh, who performs under the stage name Mo Chara, has been charged under the Terrorism Act with supporting a proscribed organization for allegedly waving a Hezbollah flag at a concert in London in November. The rapper, who was charged under the anglicized version of his name, Liam O'Hanna, is on unconditional bail before a further court hearing in August.
Winnipeg Free Press
31 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Democrats wrestle with how to conduct oversight as Trump officials crack down
WASHINGTON (AP) — Just hours after she pleaded not guilty to federal charges brought by the Trump administration, New Jersey Rep. LaMonica McIver was surrounded by dozens of supportive Democratic colleagues in the halls of the Capitol. The case, they argued, strikes at the heart of congressional power. 'If they can break LaMonica, they can break the House of Representatives,' said New York Rep. Yvette Clarke, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Federal prosecutors allege that McIver interfered with law enforcement during a visit with two other House Democrats to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Newark, New Jersey. She calls the charges 'baseless.' It's far from the only clash between congressional Democrats and the Republican administration as officials ramp up deportations of immigrants around the country. Sen. Alex Padilla of California was forcibly removed by federal agents while attempting to speak at a news conference for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. At least six groups of House Democrats have recently been denied entry to ICE detention centers. In early June, federal agents entered the district office of Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and briefly detained a staffer. Congressional Republicans have largely dismissed Democrats' behavior as inflammatory and inappropriate, and some have publicly supported the prosecution of McIver. Often in the dark about the Trump administration's moves, congressional Democrats are wrestling with how to perform their oversight duties at a time of roiling tensions with the White House and new restrictions on lawmakers visiting federal facilities. 'We have the authority to conduct oversight business, and clearly, House Republicans are not doing that oversight here,' said New Jersey Rep. Rob Menendez, one of the House Democrats who went with McIver to the Newark ICE facility. 'It's our obligation to continue to do it on site at these detention facilities. And even if they don't want us to, we are going to continue to exert our right.' Democrats confront a stark new reality The prospect of facing charges for once routine oversight activity has alarmed many congressional Democrats who never expected to face criminal prosecution as elected officials. Lawmakers in both parties were also unnerved by the recent targeted shootings of two Minnesota lawmakers and the nation's tense political atmosphere. 'It's a moment that calls for personal courage of members of Congress,' said Rep. Summer Lee of Pennsylvania. 'I wish that we had more physical protection. I think that's one of those harsh realities that members of Congress who are not in leadership recognize: that oftentimes, we do this job at our own peril, and we do it anyway.' The arrests and detentions of lawmakers have led some Democrats to take precautionary measures. Several have consulted with the House general counsel about their right to conduct oversight. Multiple lawmakers also sought personal legal counsel, while others have called for a review of congressional rules to provide greater protections. 'The Capitol Police are the security force for members of Congress. We need them to travel with us, to go to facilities and events that the president may have us arrested for,' said Rep. Jonathan Jackson of Illinois. 'There's not a lot of transparency' As the minority party in the House, Democrats lack the subpoena power to force the White House to provide information. That's a problem, they say, because the Trump administration is unusually secretive about its actions. 'There's not a lot of transparency. From day to day, oftentimes, we're learning about what's happening at the same time as the rest of the nation,' said Rep. Lucy McBath, D-Ga., who led a prayer for McIver at the Capitol rally. Democrats, to amplify their concerns, have turned to public letters, confronted officials at congressional hearings and digital and media outreach to try to create public pressure. 'We've been very successful when they come in before committees,' said Rep. Lauren Underwood of Illinois, who added that she believed the public inquiries have 'one hundred percent' resonated with voters. Tapping into the information pipeline Congressional Democrats say they often rely on local lawmakers, business leaders and advocates to be their eyes and ears on the ground. A handful of Democrats say their best sources of information are across the political aisle, since Republicans typically have clearer lines of communication with the White House. 'I know who to call in Houston with the chamber. I think all of us do that,' said Texas Rep. Sylvia Garcia of how business leaders are keeping her updated. Garcia said Democrats 'need to put more pressure' on leading figures in the agriculture, restaurant and hospitality sectors to take their concerns about the immigrant crackdown to Trump's White House. 'They're the ones he'll listen to. They're the ones who can add the pressure. He's not going to listen to me, a Democrat who was an impeachment manager, who is on the bottom of his list, if I'm on it at all,' Garcia said. Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado, for instance, had a working relationship with a for-profit ICE facility in his district until DHS in February ended reports as part of an agency-wide policy change. A member of Crow's staff now regularly goes to the facility and waits, at times for hours, until staff at the Aurora facility respond to detailed questions posed by the office. Democrats say 'real oversight' requires winning elections Still, many House Democrats concede that they can conduct little of their desired oversight until they are back in the majority. Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Texas, said that 'real oversight power and muscle' only comes 'when you have a gavel.' 'Nothing else matters. No rousing oratory, no tours, no speeches, no social media or entertainment, none of that stuff,' Veasey said. 'Because the thing that keeps Trump up at night more than anything else is the idea he's going to lose this House and there'll be real oversight pressure applied to him.' ___
Winnipeg Free Press
4 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Senators prep for a weekend of work to meet Trump's deadline for passing his tax and spending cuts
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate is expected to grind through a rare weekend session as Republicans race to pass President Donald Trump's package of tax breaks and spending cuts by his July Fourth deadline. Republicans are using their majorities in Congress to push aside Democratic opposition, but they have run into a series of political and policy setbacks. Not all GOP lawmakers are on board with proposals to reduce spending on Medicaid, food stamps and other programs as a way to help cover the cost of extending some $3.8 trillion in Trump tax breaks. The 940-page bill was released shortly before midnight Friday. Senators were expected to take a procedural vote Saturday to begin debate on the legislation, but the timing was uncertain and there is a long path ahead, with at least 10 hours of debate time and an all-night voting session on countless amendments. Senate passage could be days away, and the bill would need to return to the House for a final round of votes before it could reach the White House. 'It's evolving,' said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., as he prepared to close up the chamber late Friday. The weekend session could be a make-or-break moment for Trump's party, which has invested much of its political capital on his signature domestic policy plan. Trump is pushing Congress to wrap it up, even as he sometimes gives mixed signals, allowing for more time. At recent events at the White House, including Friday, Trump has admonished the 'grandstanders' among GOP holdouts to fall in line. 'We can get it done,' Trump said in a social media post. 'It will be a wonderful Celebration for our Country.' The legislation is an ambitious but complicated series of GOP priorities. At its core, it would make permanent many of the tax breaks from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire by year's end if Congress fails to act, resulting in a potential tax increase on Americans. The bill would add new breaks, including no taxes on tips, and commit $350 billion to national security, including for Trump's mass deportation agenda. But the spending cuts that Republicans are relying on to offset the lost tax revenues are causing dissent within the GOP ranks. Some lawmakers say the cuts go too far, particularly for people receiving health care through Medicaid. Meanwhile, conservatives, worried about the nation's debt, are pushing for steeper cuts. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said he is concerned about the fundamentals of the package and will not support the procedural motion to begin debate. 'I'm voting no on the motion to proceed,' he said. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., pushing for deeper cuts, said he needed to see the final legislative text. The release of that draft had been delayed as the Senate parliamentarian reviewed the bill to ensure it complied with the chamber's strict 'Byrd Rule,' named for the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, It largely bars policy matters from inclusion in budget bills unless a provision can get 60 votes to overcome objections. That would be a tall order in a Senate with a 53-47 GOP edge and Democrats unified against Trump's bill. Republicans suffered a series of setbacks after several proposals were determined to be out of compliance by the chief arbiter of the Senate's rules. One plan would have shifted some food stamp costs from the federal government to the states; a second would have gutted the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But over the past days, Republicans have quickly revised those proposals and reinstated them. The final text includes a proposal for cuts to a Medicaid provider tax that had run into parliamentary objections and opposition from several senators worried about the fate of rural hospitals. The new version extends the start date for those cuts and establishes a $25 billion fund to aid rural hospitals and providers. Most states impose the provider tax as a way to boost federal Medicaid reimbursements. Some Republicans argue that is a scam and should be abolished. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said that under the House-passed version of the bill, some 10.9 million more people would go without health care and at least 3 million fewer would qualify for food aid. The CBO has not yet publicly assessed the Senate draft, which proposes steeper reductions. Top income-earners would see about a $12,000 tax cut under the House bill, while the poorest Americans would face a $1,600 tax increase, the CBO said. One unresolved issue remains the so-called SALT provision, a deduction for state and local taxes that has been a top priority of lawmakers from New York and other high-tax states. The cap is now $10,000. The White House and House Republicans had narrowed in on a plan for a $40,000 cap, but for five years instead of 10. Republican senators says that's too generous. At least one House GOP holdout, Rep. Nick LaLota of New York, said he cannot support the compromise. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Republicans are rushing to finish the bill before the public fully knows what's in it. 'There's no good reason for Republicans to chase a silly deadline,' Schumer said. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. House Speaker Mike Johnson, who sent his colleagues home for the weekend with plans to be on call to return to Washington, said they are 'very close' to finishing up. 'We would still like to meet that July Fourth, self-imposed deadline,' said Johnson, R-La. With the narrow Republicans majorities in the House and Senate, leaders need almost every lawmaker on board to ensure passage. Johnson and Thune have stayed close to the White House, relying on Trump to pressure holdout lawmakers. ___ Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Joey Cappelletti contributed to this report.
