Free Discussion Prevents Speech From Turning to Propaganda

The propaganda thrives only in the closed environment, with all-present censorship supported by bayonets and tanks.


OPINION

If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence, stated renowned Judge Louis Brandeis assessing the case Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 in 1927.

The US state of California had charged Ms. Charlotte Anita Whitney with promoting ideas that would lead to the subversion. Ms. Whitney did not resort to weapons or any other type of damaging actions, she ran the discussion groups.

Honourable Judge Brandeis opted out of the prosecutor’s view emphasising, that speech is harmless when there is full opportunity for discussion.

In the late 1960s, French philosopher Herbert Marcuse had challenged the Braindeis’ view.

Mr. Marcuse claimed that speech code, which is what someone means by what he says, creates a climate of repression.

Therefore speech needs to be redefined to bring freedom.

But to achieve, Mr. Marcuse taught, it is sometimes necessary, at first, to impose moral rules that will limit the freedom of some communities.  

The Left tested this model on the opponents of the so-called climate cooling turned to be global warming that has just been redefined as a climate change. The rigid and total censorship affected everyone who tried to initiate the discussion.

During the Cold War and afterward, the Left has ignored the danger of propaganda and misinformation neglecting a duty to learn how to counter it. Everyone, including blood-thirsty totalitarians, should access our microphones, screens, and first pages of the daily newspaper, they liked to emphasise. But even at that time, it was a false statement.

The simple hypothesis became soon a core of a new religion with coryphaeuses in academia and media guarding the purity of the doctrine.


Since 1960, the big interests linked with the Left have limited free speech, carefully rationing access to the public debate.

To scale of that limit was visible when US President Ronald Reagan's Republicans introduced a law allowing for talk radios. Suddenly, the monopoly of the so-called big media shrank.  

But the full power of the censorship machinery was turned on with the onset of the so-called global warming falsity when the first report of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate created hysteria with its apocalyptic forecasts.  

The simple hypothesis became soon a core of a new religion with coryphaeuses in academia and media guarding the purity of the doctrine. As in any religious revolution, the opponents were dubbed as heretics.
It took twenty years to isolate and vilify the proponents of the other view.

That clergy of new religion adopted quickly another article to their creed - the wisdom of the particular vaccination.  

And in this moment of history, the interest groups linked to the commercial medical conglomerate imposed it to end the public debate on vaccinations before it started.

The conglomerate includes only a few doctors but mostly lobbyists, businesses, media, and some part of political groups.

Facebook and other social media channels are leading in the effort to seriously damage the public debate thus these firms are a perhaps equally significant threat like terrorists to our Western democratic way of life and values.

That clergy of new religion adopted quickly another article to their creed - the wisdom of the particular vaccination.


By depriving democratic citizens of platforms for discussion with the majority of media complying with this dictate, the social media barons fuel discouragement, malaise, and distrust of the Western institutions.

Why not allow in an open discussion of opponents and supporters for dispersing anxieties about the risk of serious sickness or even death due to the vaccination?
Why not publish reports and interviews of the concerned scientists, doctors, and yes, social philosophers regarding the current albeit hidden rift in the society between critics and promoters of the vaccines? Why not invite experts who dealt with the extreme pandemics or understand the nature of the virus from military arsenal as that one that is, perhaps, rightly feared to originate there?

Is it better to silence, squash, and pretend that the reality of the increasing worry is only on the periphery of the public debate?

Because what? Because it is a propaganda, some claim. No judgement can be more erroneous and if not withdrawn will inflict damage to already weakened Western democracy.

The Coryphaeuses of a new religion and barons of the
commercial medical conglomerate with the barons of social media as its avantgarde must re-learn the truth about the essence of propaganda.

The propaganda thrives only in the closed environment, with all-present censorship supported by bayonets and tanks.

Free discussion prevents speech from transformation to propaganda, it is why the totalitarians have feared it more than any nuclear or hydrogen weapon.

 

Go back