“...free speech is at least as important as abortion — maybe more — and here is why.”

Agree about freedom of speech in general. The UK’s version of ‘hate crime’ and other limits on speech is a lot more expansive than we have in the U.S., and is proving to be easy to misuse.

On disinformation, though…

This article’s view of “disinformation” is overly pessimistic, and also has some functional problems. The term has been misused but we shouldn’t let it be destroyed. It’s too important.

There are still such things as verifiable facts. Also some fact claims can be really hard or impossible to either verify or disprove, most are still not in that category, despite our current social-political polarization/tribalism.

Disinformation is a real thing: It’s when verifiably counter-factual claims are circulated by influencers, public officials, or just word of mouth. Rumors. The Bible assumes talebearers are a real thing and distinguishable from regular people who are just incorrect sometimes (Exod 20:16, Prov 26:20, 14:5, 14:25, 6:19, etc.).

(I should note that in some American agencies, they distinguish between ‘disinformation’ and ‘misinformation.’ The former being the more intentional variety.)

Disinformation is also a huge problem on the right today, at least as much as on the left. It’s more important than ever to avoid getting your facts from highly partisan sources.

For Christians, there is an important tension: We highly value free speech, but we also highly value truth and recognize the enormous power of deceit to harm people. In valuing free speech, we have to value it for everybody, and in hating disinformation (which is just loving truth), we should hate it no matter where it comes from.

>>It’s more important than ever to avoid getting your facts from highly partisan sources.<<

That sounds reasonable, but what are the “good” options? Sources that claim to be non-partisan (and might in fact once have been mostly so) are now quite obviously biased. The government and the press have never been 100% allies of the truth, but at one point in time our government and press still cared more-or-less about actual facts, even if only from a humanistic point of view. Now they are some of the biggest sources of disinformation. Certainly in our culture today, anything that takes a biblical point of view on the current issues is considered disinformation, and outright lies are called truth.

So far, the only “solution” I’ve found (and it is both painful and has plenty of weaknesses itself) is to read multiple sources, including partisan sources from all parts of the spectrum, and sift, compare, and boil down all of what is written to try to come to the actual truth. The big negative to this (which ironically is most often pointed out by those who basically pretty much swallow the official line) is that I can’t be an expert on all subjects, and am thus not in a position to evaluate whether what is said is true or not.

While it is certainly true that I can’t be an expert on everything (or even more than just a few areas), I still can read multiple credentialed experts, and come to a reasonable idea of what the facts really are. Of course, that’s not perfect. The only perfect source of information is God and his Word. Outside of that, I pretty much have to do the best I can. It still makes more sense to me to attempt this than to just blindly accept what the consensus “expert” opinion is declaring true, even when they trot out their list of experts with 50-years or more experience in that field. The events of the past few years have shown that experts will be abused and themselves lie with a straight face.

Hence the need for free-speech (at least to a point) forums like “X”. Of course I can’t trust everything I read there. But the interaction between multiple sides, instead of just one overarching consensus, makes it possible to find the truth (or at least the facts). The one unimpeachable source we have says “in a multitude of counselors there is wisdom.” That alone gives me some comfort that my approach is the way to go (at least for me).

Part of the problem is that individuals approach things from a point of view that has a biased perspective. For example, someone may have a point of view that the government is suspicious. They go through their news feeds and stories and click on those articles and stories that reinforce their point of view. As they continue to scroll, algorithms feed them information and stories that are aligned to what they have previously viewed, continuing to reinforce their view. In addition, while news has historically been geared toward presenting facts, news outlets are sustained by advertiser dollars. News outlets have expanded into opinion oriented shows and venues that bring in a large number of viewers. These viewers feed the advertising revenue that is critical and so the news outlets further feed opinion related news and outlets, and viewers begin to see a blurred line between news stories and opinion stories. Further feeding their bias as they view opinion pieces as facts. You also start seeing a rampant portion of our leaders espousing these biased views, because this bias helps them get elected because it resonates with their electorates point of view. We are getting to the point that an increasingly larger portion of our leaders and news outlets don't care about facts, but care about viewership. We live in an age where information is more readily available to an individual than at any time in the history of civilization and yet real information is more elusive than at any point in time in history. It really reinforces the Biblical view that man is only evil continually. As man, lifts itself up to the status of a "god", by gathering more and more knowledge and "creating" the ability to extract more knowledge from information (i.e. AI), we are only becoming more and more dumb. We cannot attain the status of a god, our wisdom becomes increasingly befuddled.

but what are the “good” options? Sources that claim to be non-partisan (and might in fact once have been mostly so) are now quite obviously biased.

A couple of ways to tell. We’re talking about degrees of bias, because everybody’s got their angle.

Two factors that stand out when evaluating sources:

• Are they always critical of the left or right and never critical of the opposite?
• Are they usually openly advocating for a particular party or candidate?

When the answer to both of these is “no,” you don’t have “OK, they have no bias.” What you have is “OK, they are trying to market to people who are looking for evenhandedness.” This amounts to something close to the same thing. If you are marketing to people who are looking for criticism of/inconvenient facts for entities across the socio/political spectrum, they are going to deliver what their market is looking for to some extent. The motivation is strong.

On the other hand, if they are transparently advocating most or all of the time for a particular point of view, you have a couple of tradeoffs:

• On the plus side, you know exactly where they stand, what their spin is.
• On the minus side: that spin has few if any restraints. They are only talking to people who already are on their side. They only “preach to the choir,” so to speak.

Personally, I’ll take an entity that hits both sides any day over one that is all about stoking a particular base and nothing else.

While it is certainly true that I can’t be an expert on everything (or even more than just a few areas), I still can read multiple credentialed experts, and come to a reasonable idea of what the facts really are.

Agree. I think we all struggle with time, though, so … when in a hurry, do we go to far right sources first then dig deeper when there’s time? Better to start in the middle if possible. (When trying to get to facts. For the most part, for opinion, I’m usually looking for right of center, but not too far right, personally.)

>>Two factors that stand out when evaluating sources:

• Are they always critical of the left or right and never critical of the opposite?
• Are they usually openly advocating for a particular party or candidate?<<

This is exactly why some of my favorite pieces to read are the opposition points of view on sites that have a known bias, i.e. a right-leaning piece at a left-leaning publication, and a left-leaning piece at a right-leaning publication.

It’s pretty close to impossible to find a site that is perfectly in the center, partly because of what David wrote above that we all come with a built-in bias, making even the “center” hard to determine with accuracy. However, if you read publications knowing the general direction and amount of bias they have, it gives a lot of clues into the accuracy and/or believability of what they are writing. Publications that still allow opposite points of view to be published are not that common, and thus when they do so, the pieces that come out are often very thoughtful and worth reading, even when I disagree with them.

Government does not have the responsibility of monitoring speech in any society, especially in a society which has Constitutional guarantees of free speech. If someone is harmed by what someone else says or prints, then slander and libel laws apply. Government has a responsibility to enforce perjury laws but not monitor our speech. Erroneous information is best handled by the freedom of others to point out the error, not by the government. The free exchange of ideas is the best tool to promote truth and point out error.

One major problem I have with the article is that Pavel Durov is not in jail specifically because of any free speech issue. He is in jail because he's refusing to unmask clients on his "Telegram" platform that are selling illegal drugs and producting child porn.

Regarding actual free speech, agreed that it is critical--how can one oppose abortion if one is not free to make arguments against it, for example? It is also noteworthy that the most fervent attacks on free speech these days are coming from the left. For example, Vice President Harris is on record as attacking Twitter/X from the perspective of free speech being a privilege, not a right. (and repeatedly) Same thing with "Justice" Ketanji Jackson, who lamented that the 1st Amendment hamstrings government.

To which we might respond, "Justice, that's the point!" And it's exactly why DEI hires like Jackson, Sotomayor, and the like are such a danger to our republic.

OK, back to the subject, reading a range of sources is good, but one thing I find very important is not a broad range of perspectives per say, but rather to have a broad base of knowledge. For example, in researching things like Harris' and Jackon's apparent disdain for free speech, what does the 1st Amendment itself say? What is the legal application of this? There are many times when I can read articles on both sides of an issue where the real approach is sadly missed by both sides.

Bert, attacks on free speech have come from both sides of the aisle. Early in Trump's administration, Trump's administration was considering abolishing the First Ammendment, because Trump didn't like how the media was reporting the news. I am not sure I have heard the VP state that they want the First Ammendment abolished. There is an interesting site, that catalogs all of the times that Trump attacked free speech in his first year. Not defending the left, but if we don't want to be biased, lets look at both sides of the coin here.

I cannot help but think of I Timothy 2 where we are told to pray for kings and those in power so we can live a quiet and peaceable life so the gospel can go forward. As we pray for our leaders, let us pray that they would continue to allow us the freedom to share the gospel- regardless of who ends up getting elected.

• Are they always critical of the left or right and never critical of the opposite?
• Are they usually openly advocating for a particular party or candidate?

There’s a danger here also. If one party or side is lying most of the time, then following these rules will be a disaster. Because only news sources that participate in the lie half the time will gain your approval.

For me it’s more about the press coming at stories with basic assumptions of their own instead of reporting what people (of both sides) say and what has happened. Not that the press shouldn’t have basic assumptions—of course they will—but what are the assumptions each source believes, which is fairly easily seen.

When it comes to critically evaluating politicians and the news media with their disinformation in their coverage of the upcoming election, I've decided to print off some logical fallacy bingo cards for my own personal sanity. Whenever elected politicians, media pundits, and political advertisements use logical fallacy arguments to attack either Trump or Harris and the Republican Party or the Democratic Party, I play a game of bingo. Here are the bingo cards I'll be using if you're also interested in playing. Double your points if you can spot the logical fallacies that your preferred candidate, media pundit or party uses to attack their opponent!

Sadly, whether I am in conservative circles or in the progressive circles, both groups tend to employ motivated reasoning due to their confirmation bias.

https://bingobaker.com/view/427567

David, you mention Trump, which is fair, and I'd counter with Harris, Jackson, Biden, and arguably most of the elite universities in the country. No doubt that exploring the end of the 1st Amendment was an idiot move by Trump and Priebus, but there are a LOT of Democrats/progressives doing about the same thing.

Bert,

It is on both sides of the fence. No doubt. But what we are seeing is that people approach this with a bias. i.e. Trump is great and the liberals are terrible, therefore they focus on the wrongs from the liberals, and miss the same thing is going on Republican side. Both sides are trying to control a message and as a result they want to control the speech to drive that message. Some is overt and some is more quiet and nuanced.

Even in free societies government has had some speech regulating duties. The classic example I remember from some class is that a person is not free to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater (assuming there is no fire).

Along the same lines we have libel and slander laws.

And this is where things can get complicated. When does the legitimate government interest in preventing injury cross over into oppressive censorship? It’s not always as obvious as it might seem. Should individuals/groups be permitted to continue to say what they’re saying if it results in people being harmed, perhaps resulting in deaths?

There is a mountain of jurisprudence in the U.S. on where to draw the lines, but it’s complex, and various entities—government and private—push the boundaries at times, then it goes to the courts.

But my point is that it’s not as simple as we’d all like.

making even the “center” hard to determine with accuracy.

I think it can be relatively simple to approximate. You can calibrate it. Look at where the extreme right is and what they are saying, then look at the extreme left and what they are saying, where is roughly half way?

But it’s pretty rare nowadays to even find sources that are willing to criticize people or positions to their left and their right and even debate those pretty much on the same point of the spectrum as themselves. When you find that, it’s high value.

Edit to add: Another example of where government involvement in speech gets complicated is when law enforcement agencies are trying to prevent political/ideological violence. So they’re watching groups that seem extremist and potentially violent, because nobody wants another terrorist (or just a crazy) blowing up a building or shooting up a synagogue or school or gay bar or whatever. These efforts inherently skirt the boundaries of where freedom ends and crime begins. Sometimes government crosses the line and violates rights—and fortunately we have laws to help push that back. But it’s not going to always work well in every case.

But it’s pretty rare nowadays to even find sources that are willing to criticize people or positions to their left and their right and even debate those pretty much on the same point of the spectrum as themselves.

I’ve become a regular follower of National Review and Commentary Magazine. Both criticize right and left, although of course they see the peril of a Democrat win in November so grudgingly prefer Trump to Harris. Commentary is Jewish, so a lot of talk about Israel.

Anyway, I find balance there and not slavish sycophancy such as you get at Fox News