During the “Fanning the Flames: Disinformation and Extremism in the Media” hearing, lawmakers and witnesses argued. Some were in support of a need for restrictions on the media. Some were in support of the need for freer, more open market to allow more voices to be heard across America’s news landscape.
The hearing was a leftist rationalization, a presentation of “the need” to implement tyranny.
The socialists were for more restrictions, fewer ideas, and less freedom. They are greatly troubled by being offended or having to discern what may or may not be true. And while individual choice and free markets are part of the solution to curbing misinformation, Bell, a Columbia University journalism professor says:
“Digital media and the lowering of barriers has helped elevate previously marginalized and ignored voices, and it’s made all public discord much more diverse… But an open market, without regulation, will always favor bad actors over good… I believe that there is a policy role here, which is not about infringing [on] the First Amendment, but which is about strengthening ways in which we can have a more vibrant, truthful news environment.”
Giving everyone more voice raises the volume level. It may or may not raise the quality of the discourse. But there is no evidence freedom favors bad actors. That is a non-sequitur. It is an opinion, a betrayal of personal political bias.
It is not possible to regulate protected political free speech without infringing the First Amendment. There is no governmental or legal role here.
Professor Turley argues that government regulation of the press will not produce a better product, regulation will produce an “official product.”
This is exactly what creation of a free press is supposed to prevent.
Cathy McMorris Rodgers said in her opening remarks:
“Here, we cherish free speech and a free, independent press… We believe in dialogue and in the battle of ideas… Rather than censor and silence constitutionally protected speech, the answer is more speech. That’s the American way.”
