In 2021, Democrats took aim at persons who donate to Democrats’ opponents with legislation called the For the People Act, which Republicans successfully blocked.
Back then, Bradley Smith, chairman of Institute for Free Speech, observed that the legislation aimed to violate the rights of groups “who do nothing more than speak about policy issues before Congress.” It would also have limited political speech on
Now the bill is being resurrected as two separate pieces of legislation, each with language purporting to counter the purported threat of artificial intelligence. They are the Protect Elections from Deceptive AI Act and the AI Transparency in Elections Act.
Some Republicans seem to be buying into the resuscitated anti-speech agenda, even though the legislation incorporates many proposals — even much of the same language — from the earlier bill. Again, says Smith, the goal is to expose conservative donors to “to harassment and boycotts.” Also to outlaw content called “materially deceptive content” as judged by a “reasonable person.”
Of course, “reasonable persons” can and do disagree about the meaning of various speech and whether it’s “deceptive.” It’s reasonable to assume that the legislation, if enacted, will be used against speech that enforcers happen to disagree with.
As for actually deceptive speech: all manner of jabberwocky is protected by the First Amendment unless uttered to rob or defraud someone. If I tell you the moon is green cheese and you believe it, that may be sad. But I haven’t picked your
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
2 replies on “Bills of Suppression”
History illustrates that, in the past, the world had extremely few reasonable people. In practice, the social standard of ostensible reason was set or accepted by some large, concerned, unreasonable group steered by some small minority who were skilled at manipulating the social order. Reason tells us that this time is not different. The social standard of ostensible reason continues to be set unreasonably.
While treating the instrumental case for liberty of expression as the primary argument for such liberty is perverse, none-the-less, when only views within an Overton Window may even be spoken, the truth will often be silenced.
In the better days of The Economist, an editor wrote “Liberalism is too important to be left to conservatives.” We might add that liberalism is too important to be left to right-wing populists, or to Republicans in general.
If we need a law about deception it should be about the bills they write and how they name them.