The Bill of Rights preserves a handful of our basic human rights from government intrusion, at least in theory. It doesn't demand the government do anything. In fact, quite the opposite. It restricts what the government can do.
And when it comes to current assaults on free speech, we need to remember that the Second Amendment is at risk as well.
Let's start with a look at how the assaults are taking place. Here's former first lady, United States senator, and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton talking about social media for a second:
🔥🚨BREAKING: Hillary Clinton went to CNN to announce that they are losing control and that Social Media companies should increase their censorship on Conservative misinformation.
— Dom Lucre | Breaker of Narratives (@dom_lucre) October 5, 2024
Hillary Clinton: "we lose total control." pic.twitter.com/k9VEhegFP7
We should be, in my view, repealing something called section 230, which gave platforms on the internet immunity because they were thought to be just pass-throughs, that they shouldn’t be judged for the content that is posted. But we now know that that was an overly simple view. Whether it’s Facebook or Twitter or X or Instagram or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don’t moderate and monitor the content we lose total control and it’s not just the social and psychological effects, it’s real harm.
The key phrase here is "lose total control."
The purpose of the Bill of Rights isn't to maintain government control but the exact opposite. Our Founding Fathers were fearful of government control and wanted the power to rest with the people.
Recommended
But let's also understand what this could mean for the Second Amendment.
The First Amendment arguments are many and will be talked about repeatedly, here at Townhall and elsewhere, and for good reason. But we are also engaged in a virtual war for the soul of the nation with regard to the right to keep and bear arms.
Much of that debate happens on social media. X, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and anywhere else where people talk about things, someone is going to debate guns and the Second Amendment.
Now, think about Hillary Clinton for a moment. You know good and well she's not someone who comes across as being interested in all sides of the discussion. In her world, one side is wrong and everything they say is "misinformation." Under her proposal, these companies would be pressured to delete the offending comments and thus we'd generally see just one side of the debate--the anti-gun side.
One would imagine that most folks already have an opinion on guns, but for a lot of them, it swings back and forth. We know this because we see how the support for gun control surges after a horrible shooting, and then evaporates as people calm down. Folks with firm opinions on the topic wouldn't be so wishy-washy.
If those people are only permitted to hear one side of the debate, where do you think they'll eventually fall?
The current discussions about so-called misinformation and what should be done about it--for Democrats, restriction is the only answer for anything--don't really talk about how it will influence the debate on guns or any other topic, but it should.
Once Democrats get the power to silence speech that's critical of them, they'll take full advantage of it.
Look at what we learned from the Twitter Files, for example. They didn't even have the authority to restrict speech and still pressured social media companies to do it for them. Imagine what it will be like when these companies are forced to listen?
I've always said the right to keep and bear arms was intended as the insurance policy in the Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech was too, though, and it's being threatened.
