43 Comments
Jan 31, 2022·edited Jan 31, 2022

This piece can only be described as rousing.

I can't think of any person, group, authority, or supposed God I want determining what information I should not be free to ponder. That this proposition is clouded in controversy is a measure of how unfree we remain.

Censors by their very actions expose themselves as the feeble frightened cowards they are, peddling ideas that can't stand up to the light of day.

Expand full comment

Yes and now apply similar logic to mandates which are equally divisive.

Expand full comment

NEVER, never, never ever run for government office, Caitlan, you would not last harf an hour before they turfed you and your damn honesty right out on yer behind!! Honesty is certainly NOT what our western societies need, we have done so well, thank you very much, for centuries, what with our Genocides, massive war crimes, world's best terrorism, pillaging Third World nations' wealth, massive lies about countries/governments that are actually doing things right for their citizens.

Expand full comment
Jan 31, 2022·edited Jan 31, 2022

Some say the term is overused, but the US is currently Orwellian. Yes, the protectors of the status quo continually amplify a flood of filtered, ahistorical, exceptionalist, imperial claptrap. But they also occasionally reverse course and pretend they have always thought thus - obviously weak-minded citizens are misremembering what they heard last month or last year. Looking forward to Anti-vaxxer Hate Week and the newest edition of the Newspeak dictionary!

Expand full comment

Right on. Free speech is under attack globally (I'm in the US). These rights are WORTH OUR LIVES and must be fought NOW. Kick the traitorous globalist scum so hard they retreat in fear for the next century, if they survive at all. We are at war, make no mistake.

Expand full comment

I love it when Caitlin takes a step and we all move forward AND upward. ❤️

Expand full comment

It's so easy for our brains to get muddled by all the shrieking voices in our information environment today. You are one of the few who remain calm and clear and remind us what really matters. Never underestimate the value of that and keep up the good work!

Expand full comment

Hundreds of young, fit, now dead athletes last year alone implies that there is something wrong with mRNA technology. Please make that obvious leap.

Expand full comment

Caitlin, bravo! This is an excellent review of the sociological/political reasons why free expression is so important and therefor why corporations must respect first amendment rights. You "get it" that "there exists no institution that can be entrusted with the power to determine who is qualified to criticize the status quo, because they're all inseparably intertwined with it." You even have the humility to understand that what you personally believe may be "misinformation" today regarding Covid-19, you may accept as truth tomorrow when you gather more information through the speech of others. Though, it's not objective reality or Truth that would change, only your individual understanding of it.

I would only suggest that "the free flow of speech lets [individuals in] the collective sort out truth from falsehood and conduct itself [nee, themselves] accordingly." As those individuals are allowed to make reasoned arguments and peaceful demonstrations of dissent, they will gradually affect the overall consensus. It's not the freedom of "the collective" that's important, but of the individuals that make up that collective consciousness. A minor point but one I personally think important.

That's why I'm so adamant about the distinction between corporations and individuals in any political/economic system whether you call it "capitalism" or "socialism," and why I insist on the rights of INDIVIDUALS. Your arguments, valid as they are in sociological/political contexts, provide government with no compelling legal justification for applying first amendment protections to individuals when dealing with corporations. Corporations are created by GOVERNMENTs through the chartering process. They are therefor part of the government. Indeed, in today's environment they ARE the "de facto" government as evident from Time magazine's boast that the 2020 election were "fortified". That's why it's so important for corporate speech platforms to be restricted from censorship in EXACTLY the same way as government. On the other hand, the private owner of a bakery must not be COMPELLED to a specific expression on a wedding cake, though he can and should be compelled to provide service to a couple with whom he may have a philosophical or religions disagreement.

Expand full comment

One can say and believe anything one wants to, in one's own mind, that is. Trouble is when one wants to express it 'out' into general discourse. Who owns the platform? Who controls the owner(s). Does the govt control the owners, or vice versa? The slope is slippery indeed. What if a vaunted pundit of trust is exposed as a fraud and a liar? What if the liar is protected by a multi-billion dollar industry whose interest is in making money by continual lying? What then? i.e. War? Pharmaceuticals? Prisons? The unequal justice system?, et al. "Freedom of Speech" as taught in school is only a pipe-dream, and always has been. The 'net opened up vast spaces of discourse and now the "owners" want to regain control. It was fun while it lasted. Peace, the Ol' Hippy

Expand full comment

Clear, direct and accessible reasoning that exposes bigotry thoroughly.

Expand full comment

What we're censoring is not information about the vaccine but about Federal agency corruption. It's important for us to call it by its correct name so that we shift the debate.

Expand full comment

Vaccine misinformation indeed. The latest science shows the jab wasn't so great, even from the very beginning: https://okaythennews.substack.com/p/science-summary-covid-19-vaccines

Expand full comment

I have a few quibbles: not sure private platforms are really beyond the reach of the Constitution when they act as an arm of the government, and think the first of the three ACLU reasons deserves a little more respect, but overall this essay is quite splendid and needed right now.

Expand full comment
Feb 6, 2022·edited Feb 6, 2022

Disagree.

The best environment is a free speech environment. And in countries like the US where the gov't is prohibited from restricting speech, the INTERNET is a free speech platform. Apps that ride on the internet are NOT the internet. The Internet is the public utility. Apps are private property.

Apps are privately built, privately owned, and privately run. If an app is not designed to be a free speech zone (facebook, twitter), doesn't want to be a free speech zone, no sign it ever wants to be, it doesn't have to be. If the owner of that app wants to allow others to use it, then they need to spell out in their Terms of Service what's allowed and what's not. Read it. Really. Clicking YES means you've agreed to be censored at their discretion. Don't like it? Easy. Don't click yes, and don't use it.

All things equal, speech that is free is better than speech that is not. But just because you "have come to rely on" (author's words) an app, doesn't change a thing.

In the US, other than in a few specific court-tested situations, there should be no expectation of free speech on private property.

Expand full comment

We aren't an ecosystem, that is disinformation included in your last sentence. We are humans who in America, have a constitution that has been torn asunder and has to be restored, and it can be and will be. Then, and only then will actual free speech be restored again. As to free speech, we know what it used to mean in America before the New Deal. Those who are down the Social Marxist drain too far, which includes almost all in our current Government, at the moment, except for MTG and Gaetz and a very few others, have to go. It can all be reversed and should be, because that is the root of the problem. The Administrative State has to go, they control free speech, as we have seen...but, they are not really-really the 'experts', understand that, they are those without 'reason' applied to complex problems that science alone cannot solve and was never meant to solve and they work with the global corporate mob. No worries, we alone have the will to undo all of this constant and re-directional 'chatter'. j

Expand full comment