MOST PEOPLE who read this newspaper have probably never heard of Alex Jones. He’s a large, short tempered American gentleman who likes to talk about how chemicals in the water are turning frogs gay.
Jones is among the most controversial figures in the United States, partly because of certain claims that he has made over the course of the years, such as the aforementioned gay-inducing frog chemicals.
He is also part of, what many in the American Left would describe, as Fake News. This is because Alex Jones is what many in the United States would call a conspiracy theorist.
Conspiracy theories are not necessarily bad, however. In a low trust society filled with schemes, secrets and half-truths, people who oppose such things will eventually develop their theories on what they think is happening in their societies based on evidence they think is pertinent (i.e. conspiracy theories). And naturally, the groups and people accused in such theories will despise those who peddle them.
In Jones’ case, he had claimed that an evil cabal of evil people is plotting evil things behind the scene, and that such evil persons are plotting to silence people who speak the truth, most notably people like him. Well, that’s exactly what happened to Jones a few weeks ago. He was banned on multiple online platforms, including Facebook, Apple, Google, and Spotify.
The conspiracy became true. They went after Jones. He still has his website, but several companies are working together in the background to have that banned as well, which brings up the question: When Jones says that there are people out to get him, and eventually someone does “get” him, doesn’t that prove him, right?
However, Jones is simply a small part of a bigger issue. Censorship and fake news are among the biggest topics of debate right now, because they put into question the issue of free speech. Everyone loves free speech, but how do you define free speech?
Are Jones’ “conspiracy theories” – with all of their implications – free speech? Is Fake News free speech? Article 3 Section 4 of the Philippine constitution guarantees free speech, but what if people start complaining about so-called speech that they find problematic. Should they banned? Should the people making them be de-platformed?
When journalists talk about trolls and Fake News on the internet, they fail to mention that the so-called “Fake News” types are being actively censored in social media and other similar platforms, and such censorship is an attack on free speech, which is the right to say anything you want in the public space regardless of how offensive or kooky it may be (because one side’s kooks may be another side’s sage).
Global hysteria over Fake News is fuelling censorship, and is strengthening the stranglehold of large social media companies by allowing them to censor anything they deem to be trolls or fake news, which of course, is an attack on free speech.
So to anyone who keeps calling for the elimination of trolls and fake news on the internet, my answer is, they’re fine.
Trolls and conspiracy theorists are features of societies that have free speech. When you try to censor these people or disqualify their arguments or deplatform them, what you are doing is monopolizing discourse and the public space, and at that point, you might as well just come out and say that you’re for censorship, because that’s what you are ultimately asking for. (jdr456@gmail.com/PN)
