Disinformation in the Modern Republic
A viral video of Vivek Ramaswamy and Charlie Kirk debating the issue of “disinformation” has been making the rounds on X. In the video, Ramaswamy asks a woman what her top issues for the country are, and she, after a moment’s pause, responds, “Getting rid of disinformation.” The debate ranges from media bias to COVID vaccines, but a critical question rises to the surface: who gets to decide what is and isn’t disinformation? This is a recurring question today, with Donald Trump and his supporters as well as Kamala Harris and her supporters constantly accusing the other side of spreading lies and disinformation. A quick Google search shows that everyone from science journals, to think tanks, to media conglomerates claim disinformation as one of the biggest threats to democracy. Clearly, it’s on everyone’s mind.
In the United States of America, the debate over disinformation and censorship necessarily turns to one about freedom of speech. After all, the first amendment to the Constitution provides for that right. The actual language of the First Amendment is: “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.” The goal here is to ensure that the government cannot prosecute someone over a personal opinion, whether that be on religion or politics, and moreover that Americans should express those opinions in the open. This right ensures wider freedoms, for if a people cannot speak their mind then how should they exercise their other freedoms. James Madison, primary author of the Constitution, weighs in on this, “Our First Amendment freedoms give us the right to think what we like and say what we please. And if we the people are to govern ourselves, we must have these rights even if they are misused by a minority.” Even over 200 years ago, he acknowledged the potential for abuse—and we insist our age is far more polarized! Yet, he firmly defended it. Too often the conversation about rights ends there, though, as if rights exist in a vacuum outside of the human experience.
Controversially, Hillary Clinton called for the repeal of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects third parties, like social media platforms, from liability for what is posted on their forums. She claimed that this kind of censorship is critical to preventing “real harm.” Censorship is a blatant fouling of the First Amendment and a malicious tool, but it arises from a basic assumption: some things are good and some are bad. Freedom of speech means that everyone, regardless of whether you agree with them, has the right to say what they want. That does not mean you have to listen to them. It also means that even if they might be saying something false, they should be allowed to say it. Expressing an opinion is one of the cornerstones of our country, and it should not be tampered with.
Madison further explained his opinions on freedom of speech. Critically, he also viewed the First Amendment as ensuring freedom of conscience, which is very tied up with freedom of religion. People have the responsibility to act according to their conscience, which assumes a certain moral objectivity. After all, religion provides a necessary moral structure to our lives. When Madison wrote the Constitution, America was a primarily Christian country. Today, there is far more diversity of religion, but Madison’s point still remains: acting according to your conscience contains an implied call to moral responsibility. When you speak, you should consider the ramifications of your actions, or in other words, freedom of speech is not a blank check to act however you wish—it requires the speaker to be responsible. This is not censorship. This simply places the impetus on the individual to act in a morally responsible way, although it does not mean that every individual will act that way. See, the Founding Fathers understood that in order for a country to be governed by its people, those people must act in a moral and orderly way. This means that there must be a system of ethics in place. In the Declaration of Independence, it’s understood that rights and freedoms come from God. The Pledge of Allegiance states that we are “one nation under God.” It’s because that higher moral order is the cornerstone of a successful nation. Freedom of speech is upheld and honored only when it’s practiced by a moral and religious people.
In a recent essay by Jeffery Bilbro, he states, “A democracy is not kept by filling in a ballot bubble once every four years. It’s kept by responsibly and virtuously exercising our freedoms in our homes, communities, and institutions day by day.” He makes an important point: our civic duty does not begin and end on Election Day, instead it is something we practice every day of our lives. If the county is governed by its people, then the people must take that responsibility seriously. When we speak or act, we must do so in a way that honors our country, but more than that we must speak in a way that honors our God.
Image Credit: Unsplash
