Consider these headlines:
- John Kerry calls the First Amendment a ‘major block’ to stopping ‘disinformation’
- Hillary Clinton, queen of disinformation, issues two-faced call for censorship
- VP Candidate Tim Walz on “There’s No Guarantee to Free Speech on Misinformation or Hate Speech, and Especially Around Our Democracy”
- Governor Newsom signs bills to combat deepfake election content
What is disinformation?
Consider the source. Let’s go to the Online Etymology Dictionary:
Disinformation is defined as, “The dissemination of deliberately false information, especially when supplied by a government or its agent to a foreign power or to the media, with the intention of influencing the policies or opinions of those who receive it.” This word comes from Russian dezinformatsiya (1949), which is said to be from French désinformation, but the French word is not as old as the Russian one.“4
If our form of government were a democracy, we would agree with Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. In a democracy, there is no rule of law, only mob rule, the rule of the majority. Remember: our form of government is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. A constitutional republic operates under the Rule of Law. A democracy operates under the rule of the majority, mob rule.
The deep roots of our Freedom of speech
The idea of freedom of speech, first enunciated in 5 B.C., was pioneered by ancient Greeks. The ancient Greek word “parrhēsia” means “free speech,” or “to speak candidly.”1
Let’s look at the First Amendment. Here is the text pertinent to protected speech. “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.“2
To abridge means to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, or authority; to diminish; to deprive; to cut off.3
Can government officials lawfully silence citizens whose speech opposes a government official’s opinions? One-word answer: no.
All speech addressing governmental actions and players is protected speech. Your speech does not have to be scientifically true or fact-based. Your opinions about the government are fully protected.
What are we to do when our opinion differs from another’s opinion?
A Biblical principle from the Bible accepts differences of opinions for the purpose of settling on the truth.
Proverbs 18:17, “He who is first in his own cause seems just, but his neighbor comes and searches him.” In contemporary parlance, “Every story sounds true until you hear the other side.”4
The text of the First Amendment does not preclude opinions. Rather, it invites opinions.
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, said, “As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.“
Around 1854, Thomas Jefferson observed, “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.“
Thomas Jefferson was the progenitor of the freedom of speech in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Jefferson once wrote, “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” Jefferson understood that when it comes to expressing ourselves, whether in public or as a member of the media, we each have a right to speak without the government’s permission.
The freedom of speech is expressly for confronting perceived wrongdoings by governments from the city council to the White House.
Our freedom of speech does not license citizens to incite riots, threaten anyone with bodily harm, or slander fellow citizens. As Mark Twain noted, “An injurious lie is an uncommendable thing; and so, also, and in the same degree, is an injurious truth—a fact that is recognized by the law of libel.”
John N. White 