The good news came some time ago, when the Department of Homeland Security shuttered its nascent “Disinformation Governance Board”. The bad news arrived today, when the Homeland Security Advisory Council explained why the DGB isn’t needed: not because the government shouldn’t be policing Americans’ opinions, but because, as Jim Geraghty summarizes, the advisors “concluded that the DHS already had enough offices in enough agencies focused on rebutting disinformation, including disinformation coming from foreign governments. The Disinformation Governance Board was superfluous.”
To put that in plain English, the DHS decided that it already has enough censors to keep wrongthink out of circulation. The Advisory Council report consists largely of recommendations for making censorship more effective. Recommendation number one is, “It is Imperative that DHS Address Inaccurate Information that Undermines its Critical Missions”.
If that meant that government officials have the right to argue in defense of their actions, no one would object, but setting up a bureaucratic structure devoted to undermining critics is not reasoned argument. The mere fact that refutation of opposing views is sometimes difficult doesn’t justify trying to keep those views from being uttered.
After all, if the mere fact that an opinion is erroneous were sufficient reason to suppress it, there are many candidates for suppression. For instance, while economists disagree on many matters, there is an overwhelming consensus (more overwhelming that any scientific consensus about climate change) that wage and price controls lead inevitably to shortages and black markets. Yet many people assert that they are a prophylactic against inflation. Should the government launch a campaign to keep the public from hearing that falsehood?
And so, as I said, today’s news isn’t good – just further evidence that the powers that be in the Biden Administration don’t in their hearts support free expression and democracy in any real sense. Their ideal is government by soi disant experts.
Comments