3/19/24
The Supreme Court is weighing whether or not the state crossed a line when it interacted with major communication entities on information they published that did not comport with their messaging. It appears the line the Court is trying to establish is when is it OK for the state to contact communication companies and seek to alter what it is they are publishing. On its face, this is the wrong question on a very clear question of constitutionality.
The state in its current form is all too powerful and vexing for any person or commercial entity to take on. That is, by virtue of their entering into ANY interaction with a person or company, they intimidate at the outset based on that power. One only needs to feel the hairs on their arm go up when pulled over by a policeman to understand the feeling when a government official confronts you. No company can stand up against a government when it determined to have its way. Its impractical for any request by the state to not be perceived as threatening.
Indeed, we are finding many instances of where persons or companies have tried to resist or otherwise come up against the powers of the state. They found themselves arrested on trumped up charges on arcane laws, their requests for services slow walked or outright denial of the permits and other items necessary to conduct business. Against this backdrop, companies contacted by the state to alter, delete or include things find themselves in a quandary. If they agree to the request, are they bowing down and submitting themselves to serfdom? If they don’t agree, will there be all kinds of retribution?
The question is not when is the state allowed to interact with those communicating but IF they should ever request alteration of any public communication. For me, that answer is NEVER.
I understand that there have been times when publicly announcing items could have had negative impacts on our national security. In those cases, the information should have never left the source in the first place. Any legitimate and ethical journalist, should have the good sense to put a lid on the story until such time as it can be revealed. That is the job of the journalist, not the state. Misinformation, disinformation or any of the other terms you care to put on information, must be dealt with through additional information, not suppression. If the information is false, let those holding that position publish countering information and let the debate begin!
Current Day Publius 