top of page

No Words

Seriously!? Is this really happening?

We cannot have any further encroachment of free speech. I don't care who you are or where you are on the political spectrum - you cannot be ok with the trend to curtail free expression.

We need to kill the absurd idea of a Disinformation Governance Board nestled in the Department of Homeland Security. Right now. Today. Before it really sees the light of day. Or, more descriptively, before it has the chance to cause the gloom of perpetual night.

I know there will be two general rebuttals:

#1 - "how can you be against ending disinformation?"

#2 - "you are being paranoid and jumping to conclusions about what this board is designed to do, you silly, naïve, NGP (non-governmental person)"

Jen Psaki took the first tact when questioned about it. The High Priestess of Disinformation herself ironically blurted out, "it sounds like the objective of the board is to prevent disinformation and misinformation from traveling around the country in a range of communities ... I'm not sure who opposes that effort."

How can you be against stopping misinformation? Um, I'm not. No one is. The problem is, of course, that human beings are flawed (Principle #2). So,

  1. the person(s) assigned to judge what is or isn't disinformation, even if well-intentioned, will make mistakes. (Principle #2a) For example, the newly-appointed head of this abomination erroneously thought the Hunter Biden laptop was completely contrived. It would be charitable to call her the Barney Fife of info-cops. But too much of the initial criticism of this horrific idea has focused on her errors and biases. She is a good illustration of why this is not ok, but it's not ok no matter who is appointed.

  2. the people in charge of this nightmare may have an agenda (Principle #2b) and may use the mechanism to suppress important, valid information (btw, where I use the word may, it should really be will). Once this is set up, it will be next-to-impossible to control.

  3. people will sometimes accidentally and innocently get a factoid wrong - what might these apparatchiks do to them? Will there be some kind of penalties or blanket censoring or ... what?

To be clear: Psaki's typical dismissive response is not only unpersuasive (as usual), it is evidence why something like this should not exist.

Regarding the "you just don't understand what this is for" argument, you probably have a temporary point there. I also don't understand what was done at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. But, I DO understand there are certain things you don't play with - because they can get out of control.

Here's the explanation we have so far, per CBS:

"The Department of Homeland Security is setting up a Disinformation Governance Board to try to counter the spread of false information. The board will focus on disinformation coming from Russia as well as misleading messages about the U.S.-Mexico border, the Associated Press reports.

The immediate focus will be on misinformation from human smugglers, who spread false claims about U.S. border policy to migrants to help drum up business.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said during a briefing Thursday that the board will tackle misinformation on a range of issues, and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said part of its intention is to counter misinformation in Hispanic communities especially."

Notice the initial rationale is something that sounds good - human smugglers are allegedly spreading rumors to increase the illegal immigrant flow. Probably are. But, notice a few things already:

  1. This Nina Jankowicz character is not who you'd pick if countering rumors spread among potential immigrants was the real objective (this might be a job for Radio Marti, for example)

  2. The focus on Russia - which has already been used to mischaracterize and suppress important and accurate information from the American public.

  3. Psaki's threat (for lack of a better word) that these new thought police will "tackle misinformation on a range of issues" (i.e. Frankenstein's monster will not be caged).

  4. The intention to "counter misinformation in Hispanic communities especially." Call me cynical, but weren't Democrats unpleasantly surprised at how Hispanic Americans started to turn away from them in the last election? Hmmm.

A couple decades ago, liberals were very concerned about the impact on civil liberties of some of Washington's response to 9/11. That was (and is) a valid concern.

Regardless of the temporary problem we are trying to address, government control of free speech - even speech that someone might believe to be misinformed - is a bad idea and anathema to who we are as a people. The solution to disinformation, misinformation or even stupidity, is MORE information, not less. And it certainly is not to let the government fox control the information hen house.

Again, I don't know what these clowns are specifically trying to do - or how they propose to do it, but

let's not.

18 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page