Perspectives: Who’s responsible for creating your ‘safe space’?

August 12, 2018 Utah Channel 3

OPINION — I’m certain that a lot of folks heaved a sigh of relief when they heard that broadcast bullhorn Alex Jones had been given the boot by most social media platforms.

Perhaps some of them feel that we’re now one banning closer to creating a safe space where they aren’t in danger of encountering contrary ideas.

Whether one agrees with his views or not, it is indisputable that Jones has built a substantial and loyal audience with his signature over-the-top brand of journalism. The collective effort to remove him from the public consciousness raises more than a few questions such as, why now?

Jones has been an intense critic of the powers that be for many years. But that’s not the reason that social media companies have given to justify their decision to censor him.

Jones has been accused of violating their terms of service by engaging in so-called “hate speech.” The problem here is that the accusation of hate speech is a classic example of a bogus predicate in that it lacks specifiable content as to what, precisely, constitutes an offense.

Hate speech is a catch-all accusation that somehow carries the weight of a conviction in the court of public opinion. We all know that “hate” is supposed to be bad but are left to our own emotional associations to fill in the blanks of what was actually said or done.

In the same sense that when you’re holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail, the legalistic ambiguity of “hate speech” is becoming a tool to ban any viewpoint that we simply don’t wish to hear. That approach doesn’t reflect well on the persuasiveness of our own opinions.

Lacking an objectively detailed example of what Jones said that was hateful, we can only be certain that he may hold opinions that are unpopular to some.

The larger issue that many are missing here is the growing teamwork between the tech giants and our national government. When the domestic surveillance Leviathan that so lovingly vacuums up every bit of our online data requests our user data or content removal, most tech companies click their heels.

Yes, Virginia, the agencies that spy on us have found a useful tool in social media.

In November, attorneys and security officials for Google, Facebook and Twitter appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Under the guise of combating “information rebellions,” these representatives were told it was their duty to “prevent the fomenting of discord.”

Given the long-term collaboration of Silicon Valley with U.S. intelligence agencies, it’s a safe assumption that some of these tech companies have been drafted into the government’s efforts to legitimize itself.

Where this all leads remains unclear, but taking out someone like Alex Jones, whose pit bull persona makes him unsympathetic, seems like a solid first move toward building consensus for more corporate censorship – encouraged by our government.

U.S. Senator Chris Murphy didn’t try to sugarcoat it:

Infowars is the tip of a giant iceberg of hate and lies that uses sites like Facebook and YouTube to tear our nation apart. These companies must do more than take down one website. The survival of our democracy depends on it.

As ominous as the growing likelihood of joint corporate/government control over the free flow of online information may seem, there’s another aspect that bears mentioning.

The ultimate responsibility for separating truth from untruth is something that each of us must be willing to shoulder. If we seek to outsource that decision to either government or to our preferred social media networks, we do so at our own peril.

Each of us will encounter contrary or distasteful ideas along the way. How we react to them is a good indicator of whether we consider ourselves autonomous adults or frightened children in need of protection.

If our first instinct is to cheer the silencing of those with whom we disagree, what does that say about the persuasiveness of our own ideas? Silencing someone else is not the same thing as demonstrating the validity of our own viewpoint.

All it really shows is that we lack the wisdom to either make a better argument or to walk away from something that doesn’t add value to our understanding.

Brittany Hunter brilliantly sums up why more – not less – free speech is the antidote:

The best way to combat bad ideas is with good ideas. And by allowing a plethora of different opinions to be circulated on social media, you give individuals the opportunity to judge the merits of each opinion and ultimately make their own decision. And if our ideas are truly the “right” ideas, then we have nothing to fear.

There’s no sophistication in gloating when another person is being silenced.

After all, it’s a safe bet that someone, somewhere is holding a gag with your name on it.

Bryan Hyde is an opinion columnist specializing in current events and liberty viewed through what he calls the lens of common sense. The opinions stated in this article are his own and may not be representative of St. George News.

Email: bryanh@stgnews.com

Twitter: @youcancallmebry