Parler Mark
Close Side Navigation
Parler Logo
Post Author Profile Pic
Badge
Amy Peikoff · @AmyPeikoff ·
Impressions
65971

Transparency 2020: Free Speech and Election Integrity, with Nadine Strossen and John Yoo

What should social media policy look like during an election season, if the goal is to support election integrity and trust in the outcome of an election?

Watch this discussion I moderated on Wednesday, exploring the relationship between freedom of speech and election integrity, particularly as it applies to social media policy, between Nadine Strossen and John Yoo. Strossen is the emerita John Marshall II Professor at New York Law School and served as the first woman national President of the American Civil Liberties Union, from 1991-2008. Yoo is the Emanual S. Heller Professor at University of California at Berkeley School of Law, a Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and Visiting Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

#transparency2020

Show Comments
Hide Comments

Love the discussion. I have to point out the obvious though. Censorship of free speech is the most dangerous aspect impacting the overall integrity of the election. The infringement on the first amendment is the demise of our civil society where open discussions like yours are allowed to happen and encouraged. The problem becomes elevated when the Democratic Party chooses to suppress real stories in order to protect the candidate favored and supported by the majority of the media industry. The death of the free press is ultimately the death of our great democracy. Please remember there will always be a difference between honesty and dishonesty. To give credit to dishonesty is merely a tactic aimed at achieving a specific result.

Right now the “Media Market” is very one-sided. I was raised on watching the news (investigative journalism) fight the government as kind of a 4th branch of government, to keep government honest. Now they are all mostly Democratic and have sacrificed all honesty for money. Now Big Tech is following suit and censoring voices that have a different opinion and the government is protecting them. So I guess I’m at the mercy of the rich and corrupt government.

Show Replies
Hide Replies

In an era of rising authoritarianism, those who shun the worship of arbitrary power tend to become the pawns in a big game of warring oligarchs that gets repeated every so often in history.

The solution isn’t to then learn to worship power as the press has done, but to learn to take that power back from government again. And restore the power to its proper place, individuals.

@grateful4liberties If I’m understanding you correctly. This is exactly what I thought I was getting from the media. I will take responsibility in my complacency in trusting others (media) to do it for me. I’m not formally educated nor do I understand all aspects of politics. My earlier years I spent my time working my way out of poverty striving for a better way of life. Now I live comfortably and can only see my beloved country circling the drain. I gave 22 years of my life serving this country, now they want to take what I have earned and give it to people that hate me and my freedom that I protected.

@Smithmax70 What is happening now with the turning of our law from a shield into a weapon is a total betrayal of the genuine loyalty you and so many others who’ve served truly have to our shared founding values of rights based law under limited governance.

I’m always struck at how some of the most honorable men of virtue lack education. While some of the most calculating, deceitful, and intellectually dishonest people I know are very well educated.

@grateful4liberties I thank you for your words and time.
The most confusing part of this to me is how some politicians found a way to use our morals and ethics against us. Like you stated using the law as a weapon, we let them set the laws that restrict our way of life. They follow the laws they want, yet we adhere to all because of are morals.

We’re here having this discussion. And that’s a big positive.

We don’t have to submit to anyone. Everything is a choice aside from taxes and death.

Liberty never dies, but it is a choice we have to make.

@Smithmax70 I also do appreciate your very engaging and pleasant conversation here, thanks.

You see the thing so clearly as I do. That our own values are being used against us.

I think it is an indication of how we need to learn to defend our own good values better, with logically consistent arguments. Its obviously a very complex set of ideas we need to defend. It is difficult to defend liberty as compared to the promises of free stuff at the expense of someone else.

However, we cannot choose to evade the reality of cause and effect. Wealth transfer laws create conflict, pure and simple.

Rather than the pacifying effect of law that simply protects property rights regardless of their form.

The simple clarification of what constitutes what is a natural, inalienable right versus what is not a right is desperately needed at this time.

Life, liberty, property, and the pursuits of happiness are rights, negative rights, actual rights.

As opposed to positive rights for which taxpayers pay.

@grateful4liberties I find myself attacking my own values, yes my heart goes out to the poor. At the same time I know you don’t have to live in poverty if your willing to work for it. We are always going to have people that don’t want to earn more, but how is that my responsibility? I can only see the promise of socialism as a way to gain power. I do not understand how anyone thinks this is a solution. I have yet to see a country where socialism works. I also think it’s ironic how the rich are pushing socialism; if they truly believe in socialism give your money over to the needy today. See if it fix’s poverty.

I think of Elon Musk and how Bernie Sanders thinks we should take his wealth and pay for Medicare for a year.... Medicare will only grow! I would rather see Elon innovate, create, and explore; he earned that right. I have also seen enough taxpayer’s money wasted.

Total disappointment. Enough said.

Thank you, I’ll check it out. I always enjoy Mr. Yoo on the JBS. I will also look forward to listening to your other guest Ms. Strossen.

Hi Amy, in my mind the topic boils down to this:
Without sovereignty we have no liberty. Individuals can say what every they want. If they are lying, people will find out and expose them. The problem is when institutions like Global corporations, the msm get involved. Organizations should not have the rights given to free men and women. When that happens, the voices of only the most powerful get heard broadly and an alternate reality is created which essentially strips sovereignty rights from citizens as they are making decisions based upon a false reality. Censorship is the worst.