The nation’s constitutional Framers worked hard to create a government that responded to its citizens’ interests rather than telling citizens what their interests should be. The Framers, indeed, feared a government that could control the flow of information and impose its views on the governed. The First Amendment was created to allow for citizens, not the government, to manage the marketplace of ideas.
Federal District Judge Terry Doughty clearly understands this principle, as evidenced by the preliminary injunction he handed out recently that restricts the Biden administration from manipulating and pressuring social media outlets for its own messaging purposes. It’s a safe bet that every single signer of the original Constitution would have agreed with Judge Doughty. Such was their fear of and opposition to government control of the rhetorical sphere.
The order expressed appropriate concern that “the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.” The temporary order prohibits the government from contacting social media companies for the purpose of managing “the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms.”
Judge Doughty believes the government “used its power to silence the opposition” on a wide range of topics, from COVID practices to Biden administration policies to Hunter Biden’s laptop controversy. In essence, the government’s attempt to stifle alleged misinformation ignored the rights of American citizens to engage in free debate, which includes being able to say non-government-approved things, some of which might be outlandish.
Of course, opponents of Judge Doughty’s ruling were quick to point out that he was appointed by former President Trump, as though that fact disqualifies Doughty from being capable of sniffing out constitutional free speech infringements. The shrill voices against Doughty also waved the bloody shirt of misinformation, worrying that Americans are too stupid to reason for themselves and thus must be manipulated by big government, browbeating compliant social media outlets to do its bidding along the way.
The Biden administration, of course, feels compelled to appeal the injunction, if for no other reason than to save face. In the filing, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton said the injunction prevents the administration from “speaking on matters of public concern,” and from working with social media outlets “to prevent grave harm to the American people.”
In reality, however, the Biden administration, has lost no right of its own to communicate with the American public. It has — for now, anyway — just lost the opportunity to impose its messaging through social media third parties, which, sadly, have been too eager to act as information stooges for the government.
Big government already has at its disposal the most powerful avenues of influence in the world. The combined messaging apparatus of the White House and federal agencies is plenty sufficient to reach all citizens. If the citizens don’t believe their own government’s proclamations about COVID, the economy, elections or family laptops, then the administration should work on building its own credibility, rather than to compromise private social media companies to restrict the flow of information and shut people up.
Misinformation, indeed, is a weed in America today. But justifying a broad government coordination with social media outlets to stop supposed misinformation also does potential harm. The First Amendment protects rumors, conspiracy theories, half-truths and even falsehoods. That’s because, as constitutional framer James Madison well knew, sometimes the government-approved points of view turn out to be misguided, and the so-called falsehoods have nuggets of truth in them. Further, there are ways to address potential misinformation with counter-messaging, rather than by stifling voices.
Ultimately, the potential harm of misinformation has little to do with this controversy. Incorrect notions floating around a society can potentially be dangerous, but it is also dangerous for the free speech sphere to be altered by high-handed government actors who assume they not only know everything but can dictate content to the citizenry. That sort of despotism is the trademark of self-interested governments that manipulate rather than serve their people.
Jeffrey M. McCall is a media critic and professor of communication at DePauw University. He has worked as a radio news director, a newspaper reporter and as a political media consultant. Follow him on Twitter @Prof_McCall.