Good and Bad in Trump’s Media Censorship Proposals

Let the kids innovate!

Typical of former President Trump, in his proposals to end media censorship, he overreaches. Let’s ferret out the bad parts from the good.

In this I’m reminded of anarcho-libertarian Frank Chodorov’s quip in the 1950s when he was asked about Soviet spies infiltrating the government: “The solution to the problem of communists in government jobs is to get rid of the jobs.”

In short, the problem of Twitter manipulating election coverage with the involvement of the FBI isn’t Twitter’s coverage, but the FBI’s involvement. And the solution isn’t only to make sure the FBI doesn’t get involved but, as Ron Paul has urged, to get rid of the FBI.

Let’s now look at Trump’s five proposals, as reported by Amac, a conservative alternative to the leftist AARP:

1. He would fire “every federal bureaucrat who has engaged in domestic censorship—directly or indirectly.” And ban “federal money from being used to label domestic speech as mis- or dis-information.” That’s a start.

2. He would order the Department of Justice to investigate “all parties involved” in the “new online censorship regime,” as well as to “aggressively prosecute” all crimes. “To assist in these efforts,” Trump continued, “I am urging House Republicans to immediately send preservation letters” to parties including the Biden administration, the Biden campaign, and tech giants, ordering them “not to destroy evidence of censorship.”

But the DOJ is the problem! Trump’s order only would magnify its power, and the agency it controls, the FBI.

He should just say “You’re fired!”, which he never did nearly enough when he was president.

3. Reform Section 230 protections. “From now on, digital platforms should only qualify for immunity protection under Section 230 if they meet high standards of neutrality, transparency, fairness, and non-discrimination.”

Again, who would police that? The DOJ. Section 230 made the internet sort of like a bulletin board at a local coffee shop. If someone posts something Trump doesn’t like there, is the shop owner responsible? Laws already mandate social media and other companies take down illegal posts, such as threatening somebody. And libel laws still apply. That’s enough.

4. Defunding of “all non-profits and academic programs that support this authoritarian project.” If any American college or university is “discovered to have engaged in censorship activities or election interference in the past,” Trump said, they should lose federal research money and student loan support for a period of five years. 

Better yet, just end all government funding of colleges and universities. Starting after World War II with the GI Bill, government took over control of almost all schools, excepting only a few such as my alma mater Hillsdale College, imposing a vast pall of uniformity and mediocrity. Trump’s plan would put government even more in charge of the schools.

5. Petition Congress to enact a “digital Bill of Rights,” which would include a “right to digital due process” (requiring government to get a court order to request takedowns of online content) and a system by which social media users removed or restricted by their platforms have a right to an explanation of the reason why, as well as a timely appeal.

Again, that only would involve government even more online, even as the internet keeps growing exponentially. The existing Bill of Rights works just fine, and only needs to be enforced. On that, I’ll thank Trump for appointing three justices who upheld the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in the Bruen case. Rights are worthless unless you can defend them yourself with adequate firepower. The best way to write is with a loaded .45 next to your laptop.

So he’s wrong on 4 of his 5 planks. Which is about par for Trump. Although still better than zero for five for Biden, Romney and others.

Finally, this is problem that actually seems to be solving itself. The market is working like it’s supposed to. An eccentric billionaire just took over Twitter. Facebook/Meta has lost around 2/3 of its value the past 16 months, and seems to have devolved into grandmas putting up pictures of their grandchildren. The Bezos WaPo is going broke. There are numerous alternatives to all these platforms and media sites.

Indeed, changing Section 230 wouldn’t harm the tech giants, because they have battalions of lobbyists and lawyers to manipulate the system. It only would hamstring upstarts already building a freer future. They would be regulated to death before they could get up off the ground. The internet keeps changing every three to five years, meaning it’s basically impossible to regulate. Any regulation would be backward looking. Let the kids stay free to create the future.

The only way government can make this problem better is by getting out of the way.