by Bob Barr | Mar 9, 2022 | Townhall Article |
TownhallAnyone caring to see the folly of allowing the government to decide what is “fake news” or “disinformation,” need look no further than what Russia is doing right now with information emanating from the battlefronts in Ukraine.Republicans are angry with arbitrary bans by social media giants against conservative users of their platforms, while the GOP’s Democrat colleagues still remain upset with so-called “disinformation” on COVID-19. In response, both sides have taken aim at the tech industry by suggesting, if not demanding, greater government involvement; in the name of truth and fairness, of course. What is happening in Russia today illustrates vividly that such moves would be a grave mistake. Big Tech, and in particular social media companies, certainly are not blameless for the storm that hangs over them. Bowing to pressure from Woke Scolds and do-gooders in Congress and state legislatures, they established arbitrary rules, enforced by secret algorithms, to police subjective political content. Not unexpectedly, such “soft” censorship prompted backlash that has worked its way up to Congress. All of this could have been avoided if, as Elon Musk recently tweeted about his own policies on Starlink, social media platforms had maintained a “free speech absolutist” approach to content and let users drown out bad speech with more speech. Why conservatives, who historically have been averse to government regulatory intervention, would lift the privacy tent to allow the nose of the government camel to poke through, is mystifying, but it clearly is present.What the government would do with such control is written into the pages of history – and current events. As Russia’s military blunders in Ukraine pile up, Vladimir Putin is realizing...
by Bob Barr | Mar 8, 2022 | Daily Caller Article |
Daily CallerHopes that the current Supreme Court might at long last place even the mildest of limits on the federal government’s ability to hide behind a broad, virtually impenetrable “national security” shield were dashed last week when, in a pair of decisions, the High Court refused to make even a dent in the so-called “state secrets privilege” behind which Uncle Sam has hidden for nearly seven decades.The two decisions – one unanimous and the other with one of the more “conservative” justices (Neil Gorsuch) joining with one of the most “liberal” (Sonia Sotomayor) in dissent – leave intact a legal maneuver that since 1953 has permitted Uncle Sam to block any legal action that might reveal evidence the government does not want to be made public, even if for no reason other than to avoid embarrassment or if the information sought to be disclosed has already been made public.The so-called “state secrets privilege” (or “doctrine”) is not enshrined in any law, but is simply a judge-made rule that stops cold in its tracks any lawsuit or subsequent legal action brought against the federal government alleging official wrongdoing (including violation of an individual’s constitutionally guaranteed rights). All that government lawyers need do in order to invoke its protection is to claim that disclosure of material sought by private parties would harm “national security,” and ask the federal court hearing the matter to dismiss the proceedings out-of-hand. They can do this without having to disclose precisely what the actual “harm” to national security might be.I was among those who had hoped last December that the Supreme Court would use the opportunity of being...
by Bob Barr | Mar 2, 2022 | Daily Caller Article |
TownhallAmong the bleak, often harrowing images coming to us from Ukraine as it suffers a vicious invasion by Russia, there are images of hope and strength. Pictures of civilians lining-up to receive firearms or forming makeshift assembly lines to assemble Molotov Cocktails, are examples of something that many Liberals simply fail to grasp as a moving force of human nature – acts of self-preservation against those who would take away individual liberty.“The first and strongest desire God planted in men, and wrought into the very principles of their nature, [is] that of self-preservation,” John Locke wrote in 1689. The response of Ukraine citizens (who just days before might have been planning vacations or running errands) to arm and fight against Russian invaders, is perhaps one of the best examples in modern history of what Locke meant. Survival is an instinct of humanity, and self-preservation is its natural mechanism. Government, as our Founders clearly understood (and they knew Locke’s writings well), is – should be – instituted in order to preserve freedom and human life, not limit, or restrain it, whether by force or decree.This is a principle the Left seems never to understand or accept about the Second Amendment.Although liberals want to pretend the scope of the Second Amendment is a collective right only applicable to militias, or hunting at the most as an individual right, such a position is wholly at odds with the Amendment’s philosophical and historical foundation. The Second Amendment was, and continues to this day to be, a codification of the natural right to self-preservation, and self-defense. Regardless of whether a nation codifies that right in its laws and...
