Opinion
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano: Can Congress Ban TikTok?
From Heartland Daily News
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.”
–First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
When James Madison set about to draft the Bill of Rights — the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution — he was articulating what lawyers and philosophers and judges call “negative rights.” A positive right grants a privilege, like a driver’s license. A negative right restrains the government from interfering with a preexisting right. In order to emphasize his view that the freedom of speech preexisted the government, Madison insisted that the word “the” precede “freedom of speech” in the First Amendment.
If the freedom of speech preceded the government, where did it come from?
Speech is a natural right; it comes from our humanity. The framers of the Constitution and the ratifiers of the Bill of Rights understood and recognized this. Congress doesn’t grant the freedom of speech; rather it is prohibited absolutely from interfering with it. In the years following the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the courts began applying the restrictions in the First Amendment to the states and their municipalities and subdivisions.
Today, the First Amendment bars all government — federal, state and local — and all branches of government — legislative, executive and judicial — from interfering with the freedom of speech.
You’d never know this listening to Congress today. The same Congress that can’t balance a budget or count the number of foreign military bases the feds own, that thinks it can right any wrong and tax any event, that has borrowed over $34 trillion and not paid back any of it; the same Congress now wants to give the President of the United States — whomever might occupy that office — the lawful power to suppress websites he thinks are spying on their users or permitting foreign governments to influence what folks see on the sites. All this is an effort to ban the popular website for young folks called TikTok and force its owners to sell its assets.
Here is the backstory.
Throughout American history, we have suffered from mass fears. In the 1790s, it was fear of the French and of Native Americans. In the 1860s, it was fear of African Americans and fear of Confederates. In the 1900s, it was fear of anarchists, Nazis and Communists. In the first quarter of the present century, the government has whipped up fear of terrorists, Russians, Saddam Hussein, Vladimir Putin and now the Chinese.
In his dystopian novel, “1984,” George Orwell analyzed the totalitarian mind and recognized the need that totalitarians have for fear and hatred. They know that when folks are afraid, they will bargain away the reality of liberty for the illusion of safety. Without fear and hatred, totalitarians have fewer tools for control of the population.
What is the government’s problem with TikTok? The feds want to use fear and hatred of the Chinese government in order to regulate the sources of data and information that Americans can consult. They have projected upon the government of China the very same unlawful and unconstitutional assaults on natural rights that the feds themselves perpetrate upon us.
Thus, in order to gain control over the American public, the deep state — the parts of the government that do not change, no matter which political party is in power — and its friends in Congress have advanced the myth that the Chinese government, which commands the loyalty of the owners of TikTok, might use the site to pass along misinformation or to spy on its users. The key word here is “might,” as the intelligence officials who testified to Congress on this were unable to produce any solid evidence — just fear — that the Chinese government is doing this.
You can’t make this up.
Remember the bumper stickers from the 1970s: “Don’t steal. The government hates competition!” I thought of that line when analyzing this. Why? Because the federal government itself spies on every American who uses a computer or mobile device. The federal government itself captures every keystroke touched on every device in the U.S. The federal government itself captures all data transmitted into, out of and within the U.S. on fiber-optic cables. And the federal government itself told the Supreme Court earlier this week that it needs to be able to influence what data is available on websites in order to combat misinformation.
The federal government basically told the court that it — and not individual persons — should decide what we can read and from what sources. What the federal government did not reveal is its rapacious desire to control the free market in ideas.
Now back to the First Amendment.
The principal value underlying the freedom of speech is free will. We all have free will to think as we wish, to say what we think, to read what we want, to publish what we say. And we can do all this with perfect freedom. We don’t need a government permission slip. The whole purpose of the First Amendment is to guarantee this freedom by keeping the government out of the business of speech — totally and completely. This is the law of the land in modern Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Were this not the law, then the government could suppress the speech it hates and fears and support the speech of its patrons. And then the values that underly the First Amendment would be degraded and negated. The government has no moral or constitutional authority to spy on us or to influence our thoughts. Period.
Does the government work for us or do we work for the government? Have we consented to a nullification of free speech in deference to whomever might be living in the White House? Why do we repose the Constitution into the hands of those who subvert it?
To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit https://JudgeNap.com.
COPYRIGHT 2024 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
For more great content from Rights, Justice & Culture News.
Censorship Industrial Complex
Biden Agencies Have Resumed Censorship Collaboration With Big Tech, Dem Senate Intel Chair Says
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By JASON COHEN
Agencies in President Joe Biden’s administration have resumed their perceived disinformation censorship collaboration with social media companies, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Mark Warner told reporters at a recent security conference, Nextgov/FCW reported.
The administration stopped “misinformation” censorship collaboration with social media platforms after a July Missouri v. Biden ruling to prevent federal agencies from coordinating with social media companies, but recently restarted this work, Warner # reporters, according to Nextgov. He said the cooperation resumed as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case, now called Murthy v. Missouri, in March, where multiple justices indicated they supported the Biden administration’s viewpoint that it has the right to work with platforms to combat what it believes is harmful content.
Democrat Senator Mark Warner says there’s a “voluntary agreement about disinformation and misinformation in elections” between “all 20 of the major social media companies” pic.twitter.com/YmIyAuJBrw
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) April 21, 2024
“There seemed to be a lot of sympathy that the government ought to have at least voluntary communications with [the companies],” Warner said, according to Nextgoc. He also reportedly called on the Biden administration to take strong action against any foreign countries that try to interfere in the 2024 election.
The agencies include the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), according to NextGov.
“If the bad guy started to launch AI-driven tools that would threaten election officials in key communities, that clearly falls into the foreign interference category,” he added.
A district court judge issued an injunction in July preventing certain officials in agencies from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to the FBI from communicating with social media platforms to censor speech, characterizing the government conduct exposed by the plaintiffs in the case as arguably “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, expressed concern during March oral arguments about restricting the government’s ability to persuade companies to take action when necessary, such as when terrorists disseminate speech on a platform.
The justices also questioned whether the plaintiffs could prove their platforms censored their speech as a direct result of the government.
Facebook executives believed they were engaged in a “knife fight” with Biden’s White House on COVID-19 censorship, according to a recent House Judiciary Committee report. Biden accused the platform of “killing people” in July 2021 for not censoring so-called COVID-19 misinformation, and unearthed WhatsApp messages between Facebook executives revealed that they were unhappy about the president’s remarks.
Warner, the White House and the FBI did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment. CISA declined to comment, but notified the DCNF about an Election Security hearing in the coming weeks with the agency’s Director, Jen Easterly.
National
Taxpayers Federation presents Teddy Waste Awards for worst government waste
From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Author: Franco Terrazzano
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation presented its 26th annual Teddy Waste Awards to CBC President Catherine Tait for handing out millions in bonuses while announcing hundreds of layoffs; the Mission Cultural fund for its sex-themed artistic performances; and the city of Regina for its Experience Regina rebrand fiasco.
“Because it spent buckets of taxpayer cash funding birthday parties and photo exhibits for celebrities, and making things awkward for countries around the world with sex-themed artistic performances, the Mission Cultural Fund earned the Lifetime Achievement award for waste,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director.
“Tait is winning a Teddy Award because she handed out millions in bonuses despite announcing hundreds of layoffs just before Christmas, only to turn around and beg for more taxpayer cash.
“The Alberta Foundation for the Arts spent tens of thousands flying an artist to New York, Estonia and South Korea so she could flop around on a futon for a couple minutes and showcase a painting that can best be described as ants on a pop tart.
“The city of Regina came up with snappy slogans like, ‘Show us your Regina,’ and ‘Regina: the city that rhymes with fun.’ After spending $30,000 and facing backlash, the city ditched the entire rebrand so it won a Teddy Waste Award.”
The Teddy, a pig-shaped trophy the CTF annually awards to governments’ worst waste offenders, is named after Ted Weatherill, a former federal appointee who was fired in 1999 for submitting a raft of dubious expense claims, including a $700 lunch for two.
This year’s winners include:
- Municipal Teddy winner: The city of Regina
Regina spent $30,000 rebranding Tourism Regina to Experience Regina. But after facing backlash, the city scrapped the rebrand. And Regina taxpayers are out $30,000.
- Provincial Teddy winner: Alberta Foundation for the Arts
The Alberta Foundation for the Arts spent $30,000 flying an artist around the world to produce art few taxpayers would ever willingly buy or pay to see.
- Federal Teddy winner: CBC President Catherine Tait
Tait handed out $15 million in bonuses to CBC brass in 2023 as she announced hundreds of layoffs weeks before Christmas and lobbied the government for more money. Bonuses at the CBC total $114 million since 2015.
- Lifetime Teddy winner: The Mission Cultural Fund
The Mission Cultural Fund spent $10,000 on a birthday party for Margaret Atwood in New York, $52,000 for a photo exhibit for rockstar Bryan Adams, $8,800 on a sex toy show in Germany and $12,000 for senior citizens to talk about their sex lives in front of live audiences.
You can find the backgrounder on this year’s Teddy Waste Award nominees and winners HERE.
-
COVID-192 days ago
COVID Is Over — But Did We Learn Anything From It?
-
John Stossel2 days ago
The Swamp Survived: Why Trump Failed to “Drain the Swamp”
-
Energy2 days ago
U.S. EPA Unveils Carbon Dioxide Regulations That Could End Coal and Natural Gas Power Generation
-
conflict2 days ago
‘Got Played’: Israel Reportedly Suspicious Biden Admin Had Backroom Talks With Mediators Over Ceasefire Deal
-
Environment2 days ago
Scientific Report Pours Cold Water On Major Talking Point Of Climate Activists
-
Automotive20 hours ago
New Analysis Shows Just How Bad Electric Trucks Are For Business
-
Education24 hours ago
Schools shouldn’t sacrifice student performance to vague notions of ‘equity’
-
Alberta Sheriffs Branch2 days ago
Crown appeal against acquitted peaceful protestor Evan Blackman back in court June 19