This is my first column since I have been on leave in May. (Thanks to Jon Allsop for having admirably fulfilled the mission of the fault lines while he was there.) Each restart is delivered with a little backwards, and, this week, I want to revisit a series of columns of the last years which concern the first amendment. I am an absolutist in freedom – a term certainly mainly useless and conditional which tends to collapse with the sweetest touch. What this means, in my case is that I believe that all forms of non -violent discourse should be protected; that the government should not have a power to regulate the media, individual speakers or online platforms; And that, at a broader, not legal and even spiritual level, people should consider any type of censorship, even when made by private actors operating in their rights, with skepticism and concern. I am convinced that most Americans agree with this point of view, at least in theory, and that one of the arguments that I have advanced in recent years is that the Democratic Party and people on the left should return to their historical position as defenders of the first amendment, not only because it is the right thing to do – and totally essential at a time when the Trump administration also seems to be a cracdown in government. Whether registering for dissent in the government, the Trump administration – a goal for a crackdown of dissent in the government, the Trump administration – a goal to a crack these things, such as football and the stories of the outsiders, which fill the Americans with warm and familiar feelings.
Needless to say, this writing campaign was almost entirely in vain. The liberal side of American politics has, in recent decades, essentially sold the cause of freedom of expression on the right. Choose any lost battle you want: the debate on trigger warnings and safe spaces, which have become popular on university campuses and elsewhere at the beginning of the twenties or the fighting on the displacing allegedly harmful a decade ago; Or the closure of “disinformation” on social networks during the first Biden administration. These small acts of censorship had the clear effect of helping people on the right to argue that they were and eliminated their speech. Charlie Kirk’s rise in power in power, for example, depended on his correct evaluation that there were conservative students on each campus which had the impression that they could not express their mind in class without facing social consequences. He also understood that emotional disorders among these children could be exploited with just a little growth and organization.
Can liberals do something similar now? Freedom of expression, for obvious reasons, has always been an opposition -party problem – it is much more difficult to claim that the government removes you when your favorite party is in power. Two weeks ago, the Democratic representative Jason Crow, of Colorado, spoke of the law on political enemies, which, in his own words, reaffirms “constitutionally protected law of freedom of expression and establishes clear and applicable protections to dissuade abuses, empower individuals and organizations to defend themselves and create significant responsibility.” The bill is known to the rather unhappy acronym NO. In practice, NO “Prohibit the use of federal funds for any regulatory survey or action that would remove protected discourse” and provide “tools” to people who find themselves on the wrong side of censors. A complementary measure was introduced to the Senate, by Chris Murphy, of Connecticut, and Chris Van Hollen, of Maryland, with the support of the minority leader, Chuck Schumer. The chances that the House under Republican control or the Senate controlled by the Republican has the field bill are fundamentally zero. Always, NO As much as the Democrats, following the brief suspension of Jimmy Kimmel of the air, to make a small saber in the first amendment and to show that they also care about freedom of expression.
Will it work? If you Believe that Politics Obeys a kind of thermodynamics, it would stand to reason that the demiocrats, now Expressing Growing Over Censorship – Especially With this Past Week’s Unveiling of National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, Which WOULD Speech Acts as Domestic Terrorism—WOULD Be Able to Seize the Mantle of Free Speech and Build Up A Degree of Activist Energy, Particularly at Colleges and Universities, where Cuts to Federal Funding and Threats of the Trump Administration has led to the dissolution of any fields of study.
But I don’t think it will happen. On the one hand, the cultural change that led to safe spaces and trigger warnings was more powerful than some of us may not want to admit it. It is true that we are in the decreasing days of the concept that discourse is violence – partly to an algorithmic change marked in social media, the peak awakened at the reactionary peak, as well as to the faith in the fall of the public in the Academy, to the crucible of this idea. But the people who had adopted this position and supported what was largely labeled “cancel culture” always occupy roles in the infrastructure of the Democratic Party, the main non -profit organizations and the university world. It is difficult to imagine that individuals who mainly rolled eyes on free speeches of speeches a few years ago will suddenly transform into warriors of Mario Savio style culture, urging their audience to throw themselves on government gears. These same people, for better or for worse, are the gears. Crow, Van Hollen and Murphy should be applauded for the introduction NO And at least trying To recover freedom of expression, but I even suspect that they know that their party currently has little time on the issue.
