Everywhere one looks these days, the world seems to be moving away from debate on contentious subjects and toward demands that those who have unpopular opinions — or even just ask impertinent questions — be forcibly silenced.

“You will never hear me mention his name,”  prime minister Jacinda Ardern said of Brenton Tarrant, the sole suspect in two deadly attacks on mosques in Christchurch. “He may have sought notoriety but here in New Zealand we will give him nothing — not even his name.”

That’s fine as a personal decision, I guess, but not as a top-down decision for her fellow New Zealanders. Even as Ardern spoke,  police working for her government  were arresting at least two people for sharing the shooter’s live-streamed video of the attacks on social media.

Across the Tasman Sea, Australian prime minister Scott Morrison is calling on the governments of G20 countries to implement measures “including appropriate filtering, detecting and removing of content by actors who encourage, normalise, recruit, facilitate or commit terrorist and violent atrocities.”

Let’s be clear about what Morrison, other “world leaders,” and significant segments of activist communities and even the general public, are demanding (and to a frightful degree already implementing): Internet censorship.

This isn’t really a new development. The mosque attacks are merely the latest incident weaponized by politicians and activists in service to a long-running campaign against public discussion and debate that requires them to make arguments and persuade instead of just bark orders and compel.

The fictional “memory hole” of the IngSoc regime in George Orwell’s 1984 stood for more than half a century as an oft-cited and wisely acknowledged warning. Now that hole is opening up beneath us for real and threatening to suck us down into a new Dark Age of “thoughtcrime” and “unpersons.”

The threat is content-independent. Renaming climate change skeptics “deniers” and demanding “investigations” of them, or pressuring media to ban discussions of policy on vaccines, is just as evil as suing Alex Jones for promulgating bizarre theories about the Sandy Hook massacre.

The only appropriate response to “bad” speech — that is, speech one disagrees with — is “better” speech.

Attempting to shut down your opponents’ ability to participate in an argument isn’t itself a winning argument. Forbidding your opponents to speak to a problem doesn’t solve that problem.

In fact, those tactics are tantamount to admitting that your arguments are less persuasive and that your solutions can’t withstand scrutiny.

Freedom of thought and expression are primary, foundational rights. They make it possible for us to hash out issues and solve problems peaceably instead of by force. Any attempt to suppress them is itself a call for totalitarianism and the alternative to those liberties is social and political death.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• “Suppressing discussion doesn’t solve the problem. It is the problem.” by Thomas L. Knapp, Cornwall, Ontario Seaway News, 03/22/19
• “Suppressing Discussion Doesn’t Solve the Problem. It is the Problem.” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 03/23/19
• “Suppressing Discussion Doesn’t Solve the Problem. It is the Problem.” by Thomas L. Knapp, Aravot [Armenia], 03/23/19
• “Suppressing discussion doesn’t solve problems,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Wilson, North Carolina Times, 03/25/19
• “Suppressing Discussion Doesn’t Solve the Problem. It is the Problem.” by Thomas L. Knapp, CounterPunch, 03/25/19
• “Suppressing discussion never solves the problem,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Dhaka, Bangladesh New Nation [web and print], 03/25/19
• “Suppressing discussion doesn’t solve problem,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Duluth, Minnesota Superior Telegram, 03/26/19
• “Suppressing Discussion Doesn’t Solve the Problem. It is the Problem.” by Thomas L. Knapp, River Cities’ Reader (Iowa), 03/23/19
• “Fight censorship of any kind,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Greenville, North Carolina Daily Reflector, 03/27/19
• “Suppressing discussion doesn’t solve problems; it is the problem,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Claremont, New Hampshire Eagle Times, 03/28/19
• “Suppressing Discussion Doesn’t Solve the Problem. It is the Problem,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal,  03/28/19
• “Suppressing discussion is the problem,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Cook Islands News, 04/03/19
• “Suppressing Discussion Doesn’t Solve the Problem. It is the Problem.” by Thomas L. Knapp, Goa, India Herald, 04/27/19

In the film version of Forrest Gump (but not, if memory serves, in the novel), Forrest’s mother tries to convince the local elementary school principal that her son belongs at  his local elementary school rather than at an institution for what we would now call “special needs” students. The two reach an understanding on Mrs. Gump’s remarkably squeaky bed while Forrest waits on the front porch.

That scene popped to mind uninvited in early March when fifty parents, test administrators, and college sports coaches were indicted in a nationwide college admissions bribery scandal.

Coaches allegedly took bribes to accept students as fake athletic recruits to get around academic standards. Test prep services supposedly taught students how to cheat on tests and bribed proctors to smooth the way for the cheating. An “admissions consultant,” William Singer, is accused of orchestrating the scheme to the tune of $25 million.

None of which, obviously, is According to Hoyle.

I’m surprised, though, at the vitriol directed at the parents in particular.

I suspect most movie viewers empathized with the fictional Mrs. Gump, who did whatever she felt she had to do to secure the best education possible for her child.

Real-life parents like actors Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman — the two most famous of the indicted parents — did whatever they felt they had to do to secure the best educations possible for their children as well.

The difference, of course, is that the fictional Mrs. Gump was poor, while Loughlin and Huffman are wealthy.

The public heartburn over Loughlin and Huffman seems less about them bribing their kids into good schools than about them being able to AFFORD to bribe their kids into good schools.

Suppose the scandal had unfolded in a different way. What if, instead of rich people writing checks they could afford,  it was working class parents scraping together money they really couldn’t afford, or trading menial work or even sexual favors a la Mrs. Gump, for illicit “admissions assistance?”

In that alternative scenario, I suspect most would regard the parents as victims, not as evil-doers.

In that alternative scenario, I expect that most parents could see themselves doing exactly the same things in the same circumstances.

“Let me tell you about the very rich,” wrote F. Scott Fitzgerald. “They are different from you and me.” True. But not when it comes to loving their children. I won’t condemn them for that.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• “I’m Shocked — Shocked! — That Wealthy Parents Love Their Kids, Too,” by Thomas L. Knapp, River Cities’ Reader (Iowa), 03/20/19
• “I’m shocked that wealthy parents love their kids too,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Hendricks County, Indiana Flyer, 03/21/19
• “I’m Shocked — Shocked! — that Wealthy Parents Love Their Kids, Too,” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 03/22/19
• “I’m shocked — shocked! — that wealthy parents love their kids too,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Nashville, Tennessee Tennessean, 03/24/19
• “I’m shocked — shocked! — that wealthy parents love their kids too,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Indianapolis, Indiana Star, 03/24/19
• “I’m shocked — shocked! — that wealthy parents love their kids too,” by Thomas L. Knapp, St. George, Utah Daily Spectrum, 03/24/19
• “I’m shocked — shocked! — that wealthy parents love their kids too,” by Thomas L. Knapp, El Paso, Texas Times, 03/24/19
• “I’m shocked — shocked! — that wealthy parents love their kids too,” by Thomas L. Knapp, USA Today, 03/24/19
• “I’m shocked — shocked! — that wealthy parents love their kids too,” by Thomas L. Knapp, El Paso, Texas Times, 03/24/19
• “I’m shocked — shocked! — that wealthy parents love their kids too,” by Thomas L. Knapp, The Arizona Republic, 03/24/19
• “I’m shocked — shocked! — that wealthy parents love their kids too,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Fon du Lac, Wisconsin Reporter, 03/24/19
• “I’m shocked — shocked! — that wealthy parents love their kids too,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Fort Collins, Colorado Coloradoan, 03/24/19
• “I’m shocked — shocked! — that wealthy parents love their kids too,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Rochester, New York Democrat & Chronicle, 03/24/19
• “I’m shocked — shocked! — that wealthy parents love their kids too,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Cincinnati, Ohio Enquirer, 03/24/19
• “I’m shocked — shocked! — that wealthy parents love their kids too,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Milwauke, Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, 03/24/19
• “I’m shocked — shocked! — that wealthy parents love their kids too,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Detroit, Michigan Free Press, 03/24/19
• “I’m Shocked — Shocked! — that Wealthy Parents Love Their Kids, Too,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 03/22/19
• “I’m shocked — shocked! — that wealthy parents love their kids too,” Richmond, Virginia Legacy [web and print editions], 03/26/19

According to CNN Business,  “Facebook, YouTube and Twitter struggle to deal with New Zealand shooting video.”

“Deal with” is code for “censor on demand by governments and activist organizations who oppose public access to information that hasn’t first been thoroughly vetted for conformity to their preferred narrative.”

Do you really need to see first-person video footage of an attacker murdering 49 worshipers at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand?

Maybe not. Chances are pretty good you didn’t even want to. I suspect that many of us who did (I viewed what appeared to be a partial copy before YouTube deleted it) would rather we could un-see it.

But whether or not we watch it should be up to us, not those governments and activists. Social media companies should enable our choices, not suppress our choices at the censors’ every whim.

If Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube had been primary news sources in 1915, would they have permitted us to view footage  (rare, as film was in its early days)  of New Zealanders’ desperate fight at Gallipoli?

How about the attack on Pearl Harbor?

The assassination of president John F. Kennedy?

The second plane hitting the World Trade Center?

Lucinda Creighton of the Counter Extremism Project complains to CNN that the big social media firms aren’t really “cooperating and acting in the best interest of citizens to remove this content.”

The CEP claims that it “counter[s] the narrative of extremists” and  works to “reveal the extremist threat.”  How does demanding that something be kept hidden “counter” or “reveal” it? How is it in “the best of interest of citizens” to only let those citizens see what Lucinda Creighton thinks they should be allowed to see?

CNN analyst Steve Moore warns that the video could “inspire copycats.” “Do you want to help terrorists? Because if you do, sharing this video is exactly how you do it.”

Moore has it backward. Terrorists don’t need video to “inspire” them. Like mold, evil grows best in darkness and struggles in sunlight. If you want to help terrorists, hiding the ugliness of their actions from the public they hope to mobilize in support of those actions is exactly how you do it.

Contrary to their claims of supporting “democracy” versus “extremism,” the social media companies and the censors they “struggle” to assist seem to side with terror and to lack any trust in the good judgment of “the people.”

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• “Would Social Media Have Censored Video of 9/11 or Kennedy Assassination?” by Thomas L. Knapp, Antiwar.com, 03/16/19
• “Social Media Companies ‘Struggle’ to Help Censors Keep us in the Dark,” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 03/16/19
• “Would Social Media Have Censored Video Of 9/11 Or The Kennedy Assassination?” by Thomas L. Knapp, Zero Hedge, 03/17/19
• “Social Media Companies ‘Struggle’ to Help Censors Keep us in the Dark,” by Thomas L. Knapp, CounterPunch, 03/18/19
• “Social media companies ‘struggle’ to keep us in the dark,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Richmond, North Carolina Observer, 03/20/19
• “Censors keep us in dark,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Greenville, North Carolina Daily Reflector, 03/20/19
• “Social media companies ‘struggle’ to help censors keep us in the dark,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Montgomery, West Virginia Herald, 03/21/19
• “Social media companies ‘struggle’to help censors keep us in the dark,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Fayette, West Virginia Tribune, 03/21/19
• “Social Media Companies ‘Struggle’ to Help Censors Keep us in the Dark,” by Thomas L. Knapp, 03/21/19