Skip to comments.Chilling Free Speech
Posted on 10/23/2014 6:52:01 AM PDT by Kaslin
Earlier this week, the federal government's National Science Foundation, an entity created to encourage the study of science -- encouragement that it achieves by awarding grants to scholars and universities -- announced that it had awarded a grant to study what people say about themselves and others in social media. The NSF dubbed the project Truthy, a reference to comedian Stephen Colbert's invention and hilarious use of the word "truthiness."
The reference to Colbert is cute, and he is a very funny guy, but when the feds get into the business of monitoring speech, it is surely no joke; it is a nightmare. It is part of the Obama administration's persistent efforts to monitor communication and scrutinize the expressions of opinions it hates and fears.
We already know the National Security Agency has the digital versions of all telephone conversations and emails sent to, from or within the U.S. since 2005. Edward Snowden's revelations of all this are credible and substantiated, and the government's denials are weak and unavailing -- so weak and unavailing that many NSA agents disbelieve them.
But the government's unbridled passion to monitor us has become insatiable. Just two months ago, the Federal Communications Commission, which licenses broadcasters, threatened to place federal agents in cable television newsrooms so they can see how stories are generated and produced. The FCC doesn't even regulate cable, yet it threatened to enhance its own authority by monitoring cable companies from the inside.
What's going on here?
What's going on here, and has been going on since President Obama took office in January 2009, is a government with little or no fidelity to basic constitutional norms. There is no defense under the Constitution to any aspect of the government's -- federal, state, regional, local or hybrid; or any entity owned or controlled by any government; or any entity that exercises the government's coercive powers or spends or receives its money -- monitoring the expressive behavior of anyone in the U.S., not in a newsroom, on social media or anywhere else.
The NSF's stated purpose of the Truthy squad is to look for errors in speech, particularly errors that fuel hatred or political extremes. This monitoring -- this so-called search for error -- is totalitarian and directly contradicts well-grounded Supreme Court jurisprudence, for several reasons.
First, for the government to gather information -- public or private -- on any person, the Constitution requires that the government have "articulable suspicion" about that person. Articulable suspicion is a mature and objective reason to believe that the person has engaged in criminal behavior. Without that level of articulable belief, the government is powerless to scrutinize anyone for any reason.
The articulable suspicion threshold is vital to assure that people in America have the presumption of liberty and are free to choose their behavior unimpeded or threatened by the government. The feds cannot cast a net into the marketplace of ideas and challenge what it brings in. Were they able to do so, the constitutional protections for free expression and the primacy of liberty would be meaningless.
Second, the courts have repeatedly held that the First Amendment needs breathing room, and they also have held that government monitoring of speech curtails that breathing room. Stated differently, a person under observation changes behavior on account of the observation. Thus, by the very act of monitoring our words, the feds will have the effect of curtailing them.
The virtual or physical presence of the monitors would give people pause, cause them to reconsider offering opinions, induce them to refrain from expressing their true thoughts and even drive their speech underground. This is called "chilling," and it has been condemned by numerous Supreme Court decisions.
The principal purpose of the First Amendment is to keep the government out of the marketplace of ideas, and any governmental behavior that influences the exercise of the freedom of speech -- no matter how gently, indirectly, innocently or secretly -- violates that principle and provides the basis to sue the government to have its Stasi-like monitoring of speech enjoined. Another prime purpose of the First Amendment is to encourage open, wide, unfettered and robust debate about the policies and the personnel of the government. Who can engage in that with Big Brother watching and keeping score?
All presidents push the envelope when it comes to exercising their constitutional powers. But we never before have seen in modern times a president like the present one. From his halcyon days as a senator fighting for civil liberties, he has descended into a totalitarian darkness. How can he ask soldiers to defend a Constitution with their lives that he disregards with his deeds?
The government is worried about speech. Big deal. Speech is none of the government's business. History teaches that the remedy for tasteless speech is not government repression -- it is more speech. In a free society, when the marketplace of ideas is open and unfettered, the truth is obvious. But in a repressive society, the truth becomes a casualty. Which society did the Framers give us?
The Founding Fathers were far wiser than many of us today about human nature, for indeed “government” is only the expression of the motivations and decisions of the humans we put in office. The truth is that humans crave power, and when we allow humans to have a monopoly on the use of deadly force, their ability to use that power must be kept in chains.
Our present government is a threat because it is giving itself permission to remove those chains. The Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that a government agency will seek to expand its power until something more powerful stops it.
While the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written with the PRESUMPTION OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY that is the inalienable right of each citizen
Government acts with the presumption of total power over each citizen. It is easy for one branch of government to give other branches permission to expand or maintain their power. It is difficult, for one branch to reign in the power of another branch. This is made even more difficult when a common, power-oriented, ideology pervades members of each branch.
The primary limit on government power is the limited money it can spend. When government gives itself power to create near-infinite amounts of money through an independent central bank, then there is very little to limit near-infinite amounts of government in all forms, particularly the groups that it will give subsidies to and the bureaucrats it will employ.
Every day more people are coming to the judgment that a carefully organized effort to repair the constitution via the States power to propose and ratify amendments has less risk to our liberty and prosperity than the present trajectory of the federal government and especially the federal bureaucracy.
The first order of business of an Article V Convention must be to limit governments ability to spend and create near-infinite amounts of money.
Americans ARE the biggest fools in history.
Americans are letting America’s first Muslim president destroy their rights in front of them for. ALL to see. Hussein Obama and his Muslim terrorist supporters cannot be successful in enslaving us without having almost total control of the presstitutes. So far, Hussein has nothing to worry about
It’s getting hotter in the pot but the American public continues to let it happen.
We know there are laws against repressing free speech. So where are the prosecutions for those attempting to do this?
It’s not the Constitution, it is the treason that ignores the Constitution and the Republican politicians who ignore their responsibilities to enforce the rule of law
It will not stop until the hangings for treason start.
Hussein Obama will not stop the overthrow of our Constitutional government until he is stopped. I was told in my US. Representative’s office that impeachment was not an option. Remember Rodney King?
It was then stated we’ll have riots on every Main St in America if anything is done to King Hussein. I said bring it on. History will show I am right
The federal government spending tax dollars to support yet another leftist boondoggle....
Disregard what these “PC” idiots tell you. The INTERNET LIVES!
This description fits a lot of what the National Science Foundation pays for. However, in this specific instance, it sounds to me more like the satisfaction of governmental curiosity at public expense.
Which Constitution did we get?
It makes no difference what we were given, it only matters whether Americans are stupid enough to sit back and let America’s first Muslim President take their rights away.
The Judge asked the question what Hussein Obama’s intentions are. Nobody seems to get it. Hussein and his Muslim handlers intend to change our system of laws to enslave us with our own government
I bet you didn’t notice that Hussein continues to arm Al Qaeda in Syria with American weapons. The Muslims are also planning on defeating America on the battlefield using our weapons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.