18 MINUTE READ
In contemporary society, we are witnessing an exponential increase in mainstream arguments for the regulation of rights for the individual, and deregulation of rights for the powerful. This is especially true when it comes to our Constitutions’s First Amendment. Government cannot be entrusted with the policing of speech in any shape or form, not if its people seek to be free. There are mountains of historical evidence to demonstrate why such is the case for any rational being. The trial of Socrates, the heretical speech of Medieval Europe, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 – even the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2024– if people are to truly exist unshackled from oppressive dominance, the last thing they can surrender to a government is an autonomy over one’s larynx.
The Philosophy of Regulation
You must not simply object to the strong-arming of speech for the sake of opposing power as a consequence of fear. To do so would not resolve the issue at hand; it would ostensibly purvey it. Rather than act upon intuitive feelings that power is negative, you must understand and be able to articulate the implications of submitting one’s liberty to a body for the end of protection, a body paradoxically composed of mere human beings. For here is the reality: we have only ever entrusted our governance to other human beings through the emotion of fear. Philosopher JP Messina acknowledges this fact whilst recounting John Stuart Mill’s brief history of political power as outlined within On Liberty. Messina acknowledges that “At first, political power was acceded to because it offered the vulnerable protection from the strong…” (5). Coming alongside this notion of “an animal of prey stronger than the rest” was the check upon state power of representative government. However, this gave way to “…not the government of each by himself, but of each by all the rest” (Messina 6). The notion of a utilitarian society was imperfect, suggesting that some group will always govern another.
Messina even acknowledges Mill’s view on human nature: restraint in the meddling of others’ lives comes not from a principled objection to interference, but a lack of power. Messina rightfully points out that these ghosts of Mill feed into Judith Shklar’s coinage of the liberalism of fear (8). In a nutshell, this term refers to the worry regarding excess power of the state at every level – because it is ostensibly governed by lifeforms operated via the exact human nature acknowledged by Mill, Messina, and Shklar. We need not look far to understand the paradoxical nature of this system. Every human civilization – since the time of Mesopotamia – merely falls at the behest of self-interest, greed, and corruption because they are only ever governed by humans! This is a concept I’ve coined the ouroboros of civilization, the likes of which speech regulation is a highway through. We imagined an escape from the state of nature as if allowing the nature of man to dictate our laws would ever brave the test of time. It is a pathetic principle, convincing those amongst us to submit to the imposition of a “creature of prey stronger than the rest” out of fear. This submission solves nothing; it is but a band-aid upon a gash – a suture upon a mangled corpse. If one wishes to be free from oppression, indeed, they do not understand the nature of this existence. From the moment we are born on this earth, we are oppressed. Infants do not fall out of the womb, rejoicing their existence; they are thrust from it, wailing in discomfort. In order to survive, one must even end life in some capacity. If we do not eat, we will die. Vegans are not exempt from this law either; plants are also forms of multicellular life that rely on an array of chemical and electrical signals to perceive alterations in light, gravity, temperature and touch. To reject this actual state of nature is to reject existence. To pretend that allotting a group of humans control over speech could save us from this reality is laughable when contextualized in the grand scope of history. If one wishes to make their life at least less oppressive, they must resist an allotment of their agency to other humans at all costs. If not, this wholesale of freedom will rot into the shape of an oppressive demon.
Take Control of Your Life!
There are sensible concerns towards the “radical” ideology that says speech cannot be regulated for these reasons. Some may argue that this requires us to permit fraud perpetrated by corporations, a mobster’s conspiracy, and, even more simply, capital threats made amongst citizens (i.e., speech we have already deemed worthy of governmental regulation). Yet another philosopher, Charles Lawrence, makes a good argument along these same lines; suggesting that racist hate speech falls well within these boundaries of regulation because of its “injurious” effect, which inspires conduct in those who agree (62). My response is – you guessed it – rooted in the state of nature. I completely agree with the foundation of these objections: free speech poses dangerous implications for public safety and individual freedom. However, we know that speech regulation does the same. Whichever option you settle with, you face equally dangerous and inevitable consequences. It is the reality of this existence; this life is a struggle against the forces of nature until the very end. There exists no finite answer that could make everybody happy, to reiterate; one body will always be doomed to a governing by all the rest in a society. Rather than pretend an answer exists somewhere at the end of a pages-long logical proof, I’d instead answer with a questioning of what you believe to be genuinely eudaimonic. Is it better to place your safety in the hands of others, who too often evade accountability? Or is it more sensible to hold only yourself accountable for your life, in a world where nearly every other burden is socialized unto the taxpayer? If you truly fear for your safety at the hands of free speech, then you are in the wrong country. The police – as ruled by the Supreme Court in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989) – have no legal requirement to defend your life. While this does not bar them from doing such, it certainly renders the precedent that you should leave your safety in the hands of government ridiculous – they are not encouraged by law to do so! As for defending your life in the face of other, more powerful criminal entities such as corporations or mafiosi, there are plenty of examples as to how you should defend your agency in the face of these tyrants (The Battle of Blair Mountain, Shay’s Rebellion, Whiskey Rebellion, Fries’s Rebellion, Anti-Rent War, Great Railroad Strike of 1877…).
Speech carries innate power. It is the vessel by which we stay informed as to the corruption of our representatives, find a means to self-expression, ensure revolution is delivered unto the masses, etc. Once you allow one restriction of this freedom, those who wish to exercise power to the fullest extent will twist and exploit this rule for their ends at some point in time. The trial of Socrates, the heretical speech of Medieval Europe, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, the Reichstag Fire Decree, the Italian Law on Public Security, Saddam Hussein’s Law of the Revolutionary Command – the list is as long as recorded civilization. Speech is always identified as an obstacle to corruption. More importantly, corrupt governments never admit to silencing speech for their own ends. The act is often hidden behind facades of righteousness that help these viruses evade detection, a trojan horse for speech.
The Contemporary Conditions for American Speech
If somehow, by this point, you have not been convinced by my argument that speech regulation destroys freedom, as evidenced not only throughout history but as a symptom of the state of nature, then I must beg your attention to the current state of affairs within this country. There has been a campaign against free speech in the US for quite some time. It has served the exact end of malfeasance that every decaying society rears from its slimy loins. Some argue this endeavor began with the Espionage Act in 1917 (used to silence whistleblowers and dissidents of war); others argue that it was through the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 (which outlawed salacious speech against the president). These examples both rely on the excuse of “national security,” a trojan horse tactic, as described earlier. For the purposes of this text, what matters is not where this trampling of speech freedoms began but how it exists today. Take, for example, the Antisemitism Awareness Act, passed last May. The bill appears sensible at first glance, establishing definitions for this discrimination such as “calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews” or “making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews.” However, upon sifting through the legislation more clearly, it becomes evident there are more sinister intentions at play with other definitions such as “…applying double standards by requiring of (Israel) a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” and “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” This comes amongst not accusations but irrefutable evidence that Israel is currently perpetrating genocide in Gaza, and has been subjugating Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank to apartheid for decades prior – per every reputable human rights organization in existence. Logically, one may deduce this expansive definition to be utilized in persecuting voices of dissent regarding US diplomacy with Israel – a nation that relies primarily on US tax dollars to disproportionately target and collectively punish civilians with two thousand-pound munitions. We are already seeing it happen across the breadth of this nation via college protests and the framing of dissidents in corporate media as “Hamas supporters” or “terrorist sympathizers” who could pose a threat to national security. This past November, the US House of Representatives passed the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, which grants the Treasury Department uncontested authority in determining which non-profit is and isn’t a “terrorist group” according to their political speech, and thus worthy or not of a tax-exempt status. In February, 2023, the Supreme Court refused to contest an Arkansas legislation requiring government contractors to certify that they are not boycotting Israel; as of 2024, 38 states have passed bills and/or executive orders manufactured to interfere with any boycott of Israel.
Maybe this example isn’t enough for you. Maybe you’re of the camp that equivocates criticism of the apartheid-pariah-state Israel with antisemitism. Do not fret, this parasitic virus has constricted its serpentine body elsewhere amongst our “representative” government. There are too many examples which extenuate beyond foreign governments meddling in our domestic policy – typically hiding behind facades of “national security” or the elusive “state secrets privilege”. Truthfully, there is one example in particular much more vile than any politician bought and sold by a lobbyist: our bureaucratic intelligence community. Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, this nation has seen a top-down power demonstration jumping from the likes of a Franz Kafka or George Orwell novel. This isn’t to say that such an imbalance wasn’t already rampant, this was just a pivotal moment in which it exploded tenfold. Speech was one of the first targets in this crusade against the rights of the individual. Take for example projects such as the Main Core database, “…a database of Americans, who, often for the slightest and most trivial reason, are considered unfriendly, and who in a time of panic might be incarcerated. The database can identify and locate perceived ‘enemies of the state’ almost instantaneously,” , “the database reportedly collects and stores — without warrants or court orders — the names and detailed data of Americans considered to be threats to national security.” This panopticon-like tool of the state was around for much longer than 9/11, it originated from within the sulfuric bowels of the Reagan administration (presumably starting as a collection of political dissidents, communist sympathizers, etc.). By the time Main Core was being addressed by George W Bush, it was used in part to “assess threats to ‘the continuity of our government’.” If the phrase continuity of government (COG) doesn’t make the hair on your neck stand on end with a déjà vu familiarity, you’re probably fortunate enough to not know about specific COG protocols set in place that also date back to Ronald Reagan – which paired with a tool such as Main Core would make implications for the complete degradation of the US Constitution.
American COG protocols existed well before Reagan solely as measures to ensure our government would survive a doomsday nuclear scenario (this is not exclusive to the US), such measures have always entailed shipping politicians off to underground bunkers and placing a “shadow” government in control of the country. Yet in the final hours of Reagan’s presidency, our official criteria for such extreme measures was perverted far from its original meaning. According to Section 101 of Executive Order 12656 the invocation criteria for COG protocols was now defined as such, “A national security emergency is any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States.” In other words, the sole criteria for implementing COG protocols was no longer framed around a nuclear holocaust, it was now at the mercy of whatever the White House considers to be a “national security emergency”. What exactly did the Reagan White House consider a national security threat so dire it required alteration of provisions for emergency government overreach? During the Iran-Contra hearings of July 1987, Congressman Jack Brooks had reason to ponder this same question,
[Congressman Jack] Brooks: Colonel North, in your work at the N.S.C. were you not assigned, at one time, to work on plans for the continuity of government in the event of a major disaster?
Brendan Sullivan [North’s counsel, agitatedly]: Mr. Chairman?
[Senator Daniel] Inouye: I believe that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified area so may I request that you not touch upon that?
Brooks: I was particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, because I read in Miami papers, and several others, that there had been a plan developed, by that same agency, a contingency plan in the event of emergency, that would suspend the American constitution. And I was deeply concerned about it and wondered if that was an area in which he had worked. I believe that it was and I wanted to get his confirmation.
Inouye: May I most respectfully request that that matter not be touched upon at this stage. If we wish to get into this, I’m certain arrangements can be made for an executive session.
What wasn’t disclosed in this conversation was the exact contingency plan Congressman Brooks was referencing, Readiness Exercise 1984 Bravo (REX-84B). This operation was revealed by Alfonso Chardy in a report for the Miami Herald regarding Oliver North’s involvement with FEMA in planning for COG protocols, most notably to round up 400,000 Central American refugees in ten military centers located across the country; and also political dissidents of a potential US conflict with Nicaragua. If you’re well versed in history, you’ll know this sounds nearly identical to the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII, however this isn’t the sole precursor to such a threat towards freedom of political expression. There are examples such as: Operation Cable Splicer – Reagan’s plot (as governor of California) to “…legitimize the arrest and detention of anti-Vietnam war activists and other political dissidents…”, or even Cable Splicer’s precursor, Operation Garden Plot – a US Army and National Guard plan to further militarize police forces. To those who pay attention, it would seem as though REX-84B was a mesh between Cable Splicer and Garden Plot, an equally logical and horrifying conclusion given that REX-84B was birthed for COG protocols, although we may never find out the entire truth given the *still* extremely nebulous and classified nature of these topics. COG as Reagan’s administration defined it never disappeared, in fact it was evoked on 9/11 – per the notoriously shoddy 9/11 report on pages 38 and 326 – and thanks to George W Bush we know it was used in conjunction with the Main Core database, which, to reiterate, collects and stores detailed information of Americans considered to be ‘threats to national security’.
The Disease
COG, as defined in Executive Order 12656, encompasses the parasitic disease plaguing the minds of those we elect in Washington: the idea that government does not exist to serve the people but instead serve itself. In other words, far too many of our politicians, bureaucrats, oligarchs – anybody with political and fiscal gravity alike – believe that their duty lies not to the American people, but to themselves. Andrew Bustamante, a former CIA operative, puts into uncanny perspective on the Danny Jones Podcast (at 1:45:32) how public officials (namely unelected ones) view their jobs during a debate with CIA torture program whistleblower John Kiriakou,
The government does not work for us. It should not. The government is there to ensure the continuation of the American ideal. That’s the purpose of the government, it is not there to serve you…If every American is destroyed, if every American is killed, with the exception of the people in government – the President, whatever you wanna call it, one congress person , one senator, one house member…then the American government continues. America is defined not by its people, by its government. That’s what we went to war with the British about. We could have been colonists, we could’ve been communities, we could’ve been people, we could’ve been collections. But the right to sovereign independence is a government thing, the government exists to survive and to serve the continuation of the government of the United States, not the American people. That’s part of the ideological hogwash that we were all taught in elementary school civics that just isn’t true, they’re not there to serve us, that’s not what the purpose of government is. You swore an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States, that is a document defining the government. A government of the people by the people for the people, but it’s still a fuckin government, not “the people”. The people of the United States, through the eyes of the government – FBI, CIA, NSA, White House – the people of the United States are engines of economic development. We are there to create the GDP and the flow of economic power that the government can then use to enact national security policies or international policies that benefit: the government. That’s the cycle….Where do you think your independence comes from…1,000% it’s the government that gives you your independence.
It is painfully clear that those at the helm of this society have come to the point in which authorities typically decline. They do not have our best intentions in mind when it comes to our relationship, let alone restrictions on speech. Even more apparent, these restrictions have but one ending: our government’s descent into malfeasance – and ultimately an oppression of the people it was designed to protect…although apparently CIA operatives are walking around believing this isn’t what the government was designed for. Hell, I’m sure if this article gained enough traction, it would be categorized by the FBI as a “conspiracy theory” driven threat to national security; trampled upon and classified among the likes of QAnon nutjobs. Given that former FBI Assistant Director of Counterterrorism, Michael C. McGarrity, disclosed in a 2019 speech to Congress that the bureau categorizes domestic terror threats into “…four main categories: racially motivated violent extremism, anti-government/anti-authority extremism, animal rights/environmental extremism, and abortion extremism,” I’d say it’s a possibility. The ouroboros of civilization is an inescapable cycle; however, the policing of speech yields no cure to our ailment.
Works Unavailable for Hyperlink Citation
Lawrence, Charles. If He Hollers Let Him Go: Regulating Racist Speech on Campus, blackboard.syracuse.edu/. Accessed 8 Nov. 2024.
Messina, JP. Freedom of Expression and the Liberalism of Fear, blackboard.syracuse.edu/. Accessed 8 Nov. 2024.