(RoyalPatriot.com )- A left-wing professor of law and political science has written a book advocating for censorship as a way to curb “misinformation” in American elections. But he believes the conservative on the Supreme Court would oppose his ideas because the conservative majority has an “outmoded” view of the First Amendment.
“Outmoded.” Oh, brother.
In his book “Cheap Speech: How Disinformation Poisons our Politics – and How to Cure It,” Richard Hasen, a professor at the University of California, Irvine believes the “greatest danger” to the country is an electorate that can’t “determine truth” and is unable to make voting decisions based on “accurate information.”
He thinks voters are too stupid to tell facts from “political manipulation.” So what’s needed is a crackdown on so-called “misinformation” so voters can make informed decisions.
See the problem?
Who decides what constitutes “misinformation?”
Hasen wants Congress to pass several laws to “cure” the problem of “disinformation. He wants to ban foreign spending in elections, require the disclosure of who is funding online ads, and wants a “narrow” ban on “false speech about the mechanics of voting.”
But Hasen doesn’t believe the Supreme Court would allow such laws to stand because of their “outmoded” view of the First Amendment.
In a recent interview, Hasen had especially harsh words for Justice Clarence Thomas, whom he sees as his primary obstacle in getting his speech bans enacted.
Hasen also defended Twitter and Facebook banning former President Donald Trump from their platforms, arguing that their actions did not amount to censorship. Instead, their actions were free speech.
In his interview, Hasen offered tepid support for the idea of using antitrust laws to break up big tech companies if there is evidence of bias. But he suggested that bias in big tech isn’t nearly as bad as bias on the Supreme Court. As proof of this so-called bias, Hasen cites Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife Ginny Thomas, who, in point of fact, isn’t on the Supreme Court.
Hasen claims in his interview that the Supreme Court is “no friend of democracy.”
Of course, that’s probably because the Supreme Court is the third branch of a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
This book is probably not worth reading.
