Thou shalt not speak out against the government narrative. To do so will result in your cancellation and all your rights removed by those in the administration that know better than you. Be forewarned and be silent if you know what is good for you.
“Thou shalt not speak out against the government narrative. To do so will result in your cancellation and all your rights removed by those in the administration that know better than you. Be forewarned and be silent if you know what is good for you.”
This struggle over federal censorship reflects two competing visions of freedom in America.
First, as the Louisiana court emphasizes, CISA Director Jen Easterly aptly summarizes the federal officials’ view: “She … stated, ‘We live in a world where people talk about alternative facts, post-truth, which I think is really, really dangerous if people get to pick their own facts.’” Ex. 1, at 77.
She also stated, “[W]e’re in the business of protecting critical infrastructure, and the most critical is our ‘cognitive infrastructure.’” Id.
Thus, Easterly’s view—reflected in federal censorship activity—is that the American “people” cannot be trusted “to pick their own facts,” and that the government should pick our facts for us. Id. She believes that the federal government—armed with the weapons, authority, and the domestic surveillance capacity of the national-security state—should police our “cognitive infrastructure.” Id. As the Louisiana court found, “cognitive infrastructure” means that “the CISA Defendants believe they had a mandate to control the process of acquiring knowledge.” Id. at 110.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s watershed First Amendment opinions express a radically different view of freedom.
“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.” W. Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). “Our constitutional tradition stands against the idea that we need Oceania’s Ministry of Truth.” United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709, 723 (2012) (plurality op.).
The Louisiana case is one part of a titanic struggle between these two visions of freedom. The former view—the view reflected in the actions of federal censorship agents like Jennifer Psaki, Rob Flaherty, Andy Slavitt, Dr. Vivek Murthy, Carol Crawford, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Jen Easterly, Matthew Masterson, Brian Scully, Alex Stamos, Rene DiResta, Kate Starbird, Elvis Chan, Laura Dehmlow, and a host of other federal censors—is terrifying and tyrannical, and its power is expanding rapidly.
But the latter view is the vision enshrined in the plain text of our Constitution and deeply engrained in our traditions of liberty. I am profoundly hopeful that this latter vision of freedom will prevail.
This struggle over federal censorship reflects two competing visions of freedom in America:.
https://brownstone.org/articles/the-brilliant-legal-mind-of-john-sauer/