Today’s censors wield cudgels with the word ‘information.’ Content they don’t like they call ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation.’ The justification is fake. The protection is faux protection. Pretending to protect people from bad information by means of censorship may be called infaux thuggery.
The cudgels are hidden, of course, but it is not hard to see through the pretence and discern the underlying message: knuckle under or we will hurt you.
The UK’s Online Safety Act exemplifies infaux thuggery, as does Brazil’s recent action against X (formerly Twitter). The Australian government is dominated by another gang of infaux thugs. The UK, sadly, not only practices infaux thuggery at home, it tutors the world in infaux thuggery.
The same goes for where I live, the United States. Kamala Harris threatens: ‘If you act as a megaphone for misinformation… we are going to hold you accountable.’ Hillary Clinton calls for criminalization of speech not to her liking. Harris’ running mate Tim Walz threatens: ‘There’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation and hate speech.’
Thankfully, that’s not true, at least in the US. As Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. responded, the US Constitution ‘is exactly what prevents the government from stifling dissent by labeling something “hate speech” or “misinformation.”’ Alarmingly, former Secretary of State John Kerry recently lamented that the First Amendment ‘stands as a major block to…hammer it [“disinformation”] out of existence,’ and implied that that ‘is part of what this race, this election is all about.’
Of course, malicious actors, including enemy states, may spread lies to sow discord – especially online. So too can those who are simply ill-informed. Yet in the absence of censorship, big lies will be torn to shreds. In this battle, the infaux thugs are on the wrong side.
The infaux thugs use ‘information’ to confuse matters. The content they suppress is more aptly termed narratives, interpretations, opinions or judgments. Those terms are more capacious, befitting frank and open debate and controversy.
In their hostility to open debate, the infaux thugs are mounting an attack on modern civilisation. They evoke our crude instincts from pre-modern life, instincts for a small, simple society, in which the leader’s narrative must be believed by all and enforced upon the members of the band. If you don’t share the leader’s narrative, you are a miscreant. You are to be corrected, expelled or destroyed. At the very least, you are to shut up.
After the printing press and the civil and religious wars, Europeans came to learn that all narratives will not be shared by all. Rulers turned to a different approach. No longer would society enforce against differences in worship and opinion. Governments began to allow people to differ in the higher things that provide spiritual meaning. People were allowed to voice novel interpretations of Scripture, of the natural world, of society, of good government and of God.
‘As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed,’ wrote James Madison in The Federalist Papers. Our civilisation said it is okay to speak your mind, as long as you respect your neighbour’s person and property and do not incite violence. Madison and his associates called it liberty, which is at the heart of classical liberal civilisation.
The word information, properly understood, implies that the content is ‘in form.’ Information is in a format that is commonly recognised and understood, like telephone numbers in a directory. The word information takes for granted a working, straightforward format or interpretation for the content. Information that is bad may be called misinformation, but its badness is uncontroversial, once someone notices the mistake. Misinformation, properly understood, is not something that people argue fervently about.
What people argue fervently about are vying interpretations of things. A social media post saying that the Covid virus came from a lab is not a matter of mere information. At least until decisive evidence emerges, it is a wider interpretation of things, including of the trustworthiness of particular sources of content and evidence. Censoring it as ‘misinformation’ is itself misleading.
The infaux thugs force the targeted individual back on his heels. He snaps back: ‘No, I speak true information!’ But there is something unconvincing in the rebuttal. He is snared by ‘information.’ It would be better to insist that he believes in his claims, in its truth, capaciously understood. His speech interprets creatively and exercises judgment over vying interpretations. He should invoke the freedom to discuss, which is the sacred way of our civilisation.
The infaux thugs violate our natural rights of person and property, by threatening force against our freedom of speech. X/Twitter was bullied into withdrawing in Brazil, and the infaux thugs want the same in the United States. Elon Musk ‘has lost his privileges and it should be taken down,’ threatens Kamala Harris.
More figuratively, the infaux thugs violate the sacred spirit of our civilisation. They are faux liberals as well, demanding antiliberal powers in the name of liberty.
Infaux thuggery is naked censorship. Everyone should do his or her part to ensure that this endeavour to undo liberal civilisation does not succeed.
You can read Daniel Klein’s essay expanding on these themes, “’Misinformation’ Is a Word We Use to Shut You Up” here.
Republished from CapX
Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.
