At Davos, free speech is the enemy

DAVOS, Switzerland — The World Economic Forum’s annual gathering of business tycoons, multibillionaires, and world leaders is all about “improving the state of the world.”

Or at least so it claims.

Bold and visionary proposals are welcome, yes, but not too bold and not too visionary. For the folks who spoke at Davos this year, the First Amendment, which is as radical as it is morally just, is a bridge too far. It’s too much freedom. And too much freedom, according to a certain subset of Davos speakers, is a dangerous thing. That the American politicians and newsmen who attended the annual WEF gathering made no attempt to defend free speech unequivocally is as distressing as the attacks on free speech themselves.

At a panel titled “The Clear and Present Danger of Disinformation,” a giggling European bureaucrat predicted European-style anti-“hate speech” laws, which she believes are a positive good, will soon pass in the United States. Her American co-panelists smiled politely, making no effort to dissent on behalf of First Amendment rights.

“For hate speech,” said European Commission Vice President for Values and Transparency Vera Jourova, “we need the people who understand the language and the case law in the country because what qualifies as hate speech, as illegal hate speech, which you will have soon also in the U.S.”

She paused, laughed, and then added, “I think that we have a strong reason why we have this in the criminal law. We need the platforms to simply work with the language and identify such cases.”

The European Commission will soon implement its 2022 Code of Practice on Disinformation, which demands of participating platforms that they follow specific EU-dictated guidelines for battling “disinformation.” Signatories to the agreement include Google, TikTok, Microsoft, and reportedly Twitter. Worse than the fact Europe has embraced laws banning entire categories of speech is the fact her remarks went unchallenged by her American co-panelists.

Indeed, as Jourova spoke, the panel moderator, former CNN host Brian Stelter, who considers himself an ombudsman for the U.S. news industry writ large, sat silently, nodding along as the EU apparatchik argued in favor of increased speech restrictions. And why wouldn’t Stelter sit in silence? The way he and his co-panelists tell it, “disinformation” is the central problem facing mankind.

“How does this discussion of disinformation relate to everything else happening today in Davos?” asked Stelter.

“I think if you look at this question of disinformation,” responded co-panelist and New York Times Chairman and Publisher A.G. Sulzberger, “I think it maps basically to every other major challenge that we are grappling with as a society and particularly the most existential among them.” Sulzberger continued, claiming “disinformation” and “misinformation, conspiracy propaganda, clickbait” are “corrupting the information ecosystem” and undermining trust in our institutions. Allowed to continue unchecked, this will cause societies “to fracture.”

It’s worth noting here the terms “disinformation,” “misinformation,” “conspiracy,” “propaganda,” and “clickbait” are not synonymous. “Disinformation,” for example, is an intentional falsehood meant to deceive. “Misinformation” is merely incorrect information. “Clickbait” encompasses everything from hyperbole to inane.

Are we to treat these issues the same? Under law or even under loosely defined and unevenly enforced “terms of service” agreements? This points to a larger issue: We don’t have to imagine a “slippery slope” when it comes to anti-“disinformation” speech restrictions. It’s right there in the Davos presentation. If “disinformation” and “clickbait” are considered equals, this casts an awfully wide net insofar as regulated speech is concerned, one that will no doubt grow in scale, ensnaring an increasingly large swath of speech.

Sulzberger continued, turning his focus on critics of the press.

“To be clear,” he said, “terms like ‘fake news’ and ‘enemies of the people’ have been popularized cyclically in society. And in some of the most repressive and dangerous moments.”

He added, “You know, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia. Right. So I think anytime we’re hearing language like that applied to a free press or more broadly free expression, I think, I think we should be really worried.”

As for Jourova’s remarks on anti-“hate speech” laws, Sulzberger voiced no dissent. In fact, he suggested social media sites should do more to restrict free and open dialogue.

“At some point,” he said, “given the central role of the platforms in disseminating bad information, I think they’re going to have to do an unpopular and brave thing, which is to differentiate and elevate trustworthy sources of information consistently.”

He added, “Until they do, we have to assume that those environments are poisoned.”

In other words, social media sites cannot really be trusted until newsrooms such as the New York Times are given preferential treatment.

Worse still, co-panelist and Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) not only sat in silence as Jourova praised the supposed benefits of anti-“hate speech” laws, but he joined in, all but embracing her position. When it came time for him to speak, he began first by avoiding the central question of whether governments and corporations should intervene directly to combat problematic speech. However, after initially sidestepping the issue, Moulton then suggested he sees the point of speech restrictions, especially insofar as COVID-19 is concerned.

“When I have a constituency that I’m trying to keep healthy,” the representative said, “and I can’t get them to take a COVID vaccine because of misinformation that’s propagated on the internet, that’s where this becomes a much tougher, more difficult, bigger concern.”

“This concept of preserving public safety,” Moulton added, “even under the banner of free speech, is actually something we’ve accepted for a long time. You get taught in grade school that, yes, you’re allowed free speech but not crying ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”

This bit about fires and theaters is not even true. It’s a tired and inaccurate cliche. It’s fake news, if you will.

“The phrase is a misquotation of an analogy made in a 1919 Supreme Court opinion that upheld the imprisonment of three people — a newspaper editor, a pamphlet publisher, and a public speaker — who argued that military conscription was wrong,” the nonprofit group Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression explains.

“The Court said that anti-war speech in wartime is like ‘falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic,’ and it justified the ban with a dubious analogy to the longstanding principle that the First Amendment doesn’t protect speech that incites people to physical violence,” the group adds. “But the Supreme Court abandoned the logic of that case more than 50 years ago. That this trope originated as a justification for what has long since been deemed unconstitutional censorship reveals how useless it is as a measure of the limitations of rights. And yet, the crowded theatre cliche endures, as if it were some venerable legal principle. Oh, and notice that the Court’s objection was only to ‘falsely shouting fire!’ If there is, in fact, a fire in a crowded theatre, please let everyone know.”

Does Moulton’s misinterpretation of the outdated “fire in a crowded theater” argument qualify as disinformation or misinformation? Perhaps “conspiracy”? And does it run afoul of the type of anti-speech restrictions the Stelter-moderated panel seems so keen to enforce?

If you think this is bad, this one panel was not the only instance of Davos speakers and guests promoting speech restrictions. Edelman CEO Richard Edelman suggested elsewhere at Davos that businesses should band together to defund sites that spread “disinformation.”

“I think the first thing … that business needs to do is deprive platforms that spread disinformation of oxygen,” he said. “Stop advertising. Pull your promotion money.”

Citing a “failed” boycott of Facebook and a similar boycott of Twitter that had only a “modest impact,” Edelman urged his fellow business leaders to do more to punish groups that host speech they (whoever “they” are) find offensive and hurtful.

Even centrist Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) got in on the anti-speech action.

“The problem that we have is the open press system and basically all the platforms,” he said during an appearance on a panel titled “America (Un)Bound.”

He added, “So if you’re able to have five platforms, social platforms, you can basically personify the extremes as somebody who is extremely right or extremely left, and it seems like that is the majority speaking. They’re not the majority, but they’re basically driving everybody to make a decision.”

For what it’s worth, Manchin walked back these comments later in an interview with Fox Business’s Maria Bartiromo.

The open press is “absolutely the bedrock for democracy,” he clarified, stressing he meant only that social media sites create echo chambers that reward “bad behavior.”

“It used to be where something was said and it was accepted and that was it,” the senator said. “Now it’s said to where you can find a social media platform, you can find somebody to agree with you. And pretty soon, the hate comes out.”

A “clarification,” sure, but he is still ultimately saying the same thing as all the other panelists, which is: It’s a problem that people are talking too much. Too much freedom, you see, is dangerous.

Davos claims it is committed to the mission of “improving the state of the world.” Sure. But for whom? And how? Corporations and world governments restricting the ability of citizens to speak freely and openly “improves” things for only one party involved, and it isn’t the citizenry.