“An Internet Ministry of Truth?”

Sydney M. Williams

Thought of the Day

“An Internet Ministry of Truth?”

January 30, 2012

Using Clinton-speak (a form of double speak unbecoming to a Rhodes Scholar), former President Bill Clinton recently proposed an Orwellian federally funded ‘Internet Ministry of Truth.’ “That is, it would be like, I don’t know, National Public Radio or something like that, except it would really be independent and they would not express opinions, and their mandate would be narrowly confined to identifying relevant factual errors,” the former President precisely and concisely explained.

It is worth recalling that Winston Smith’s responsibility in Oceania’s Ministry of Truth was to falsify historical events, so they would conform to subsequent events. Mr. Clinton’s recommendation would appear to be in conflict with the concept of relativism – a favorite idea of coastal elites – for implied in the recommendation is that the federal government could differentiate “factual errors.” Asked another way, can government answer the plaintive callings of Johnny Cash’s youth, “What is Truth?” Should we trust government to do what is right? The answer to the first is ‘no’; the answer to the second is ‘of course not.’

Government has already determined that when we are in the nation’s airports we must all watch CNN, a distinctly liberal-biased cable news station. Fox News, with three times the viewership of CNN, is considered ‘biased’, while CNN is deemed ‘balanced.’ That’s hogwash and most people realize it; they are both biased, only Fox is honestly so.

For thousands of years, the search for truth has been the purview of philosophers and theologians. Diogenes, four hundred years before the birth of Jesus, allegedly carried a lantern in search of an honest man. Moses gave us the Ten Commandments, filled with “thou shalt nots’,” but all commonsensical rules that are necessary for people living within a civilized society. Most of us abide by these moral certitudes. In the Book of John, Jesus proclaims: “I am the way, the truth and the life….” For such perceived heretical comments, Pontius Pilate sentenced him to death. Medievalists, in searching for the Holy Grail, were in reality seeking what they perceived to be truth. E.B. White ends his children’s novel, Stuart Little, with the eponymous mouse continuing his quest.

Relativism argues that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative. I don’t buy that. Killing, except in the case of self defense is wrong, as are robbery, rape and a host of other violations of common decency. As James Q. Wilson wrote in A Moral Sense, “We are human, with all the frailties and inconsistencies that this implies, but we also wish …to avoid becoming less than human.” My sunny disposition would turn dyspeptic, should we assign responsibility for determining truth to politicians like Bill Clinton, a man uncertain as to the meaning of “is.”

The internet is an open forum, where opinions of all type – sane and insane – get equal and ubiquitous exposure. There is no question that it can be used as a vehicle for spreading false stories, for illegally using copyrighted material. It is unsurprising that those like Mr. Clinton see it as a challenge to orthodoxies he believes are inviolate. However, all aspects of the media have long been used to serve the purposes of those with strongly held opinions. One of the best examples has been the perceived threat of man-induced global warming. And, one of the most obvious beneficiaries of reporting questionable data as fundamental truths has been Mr. Clinton’s former Vice President, the irrepressible Al Gore. Utilizing marketing skills and taking advantage of the media’s influence, Mr. Gore (with an assist from the even more clever and less scrupulous Michael Moore) has been able to take a subject with questionable conclusions, man-induced climate change, and make millions of dollars for himself, while raising the costs for thousands of entrepreneurs who have had to adhere to unnecessary regulations. Hypocrisy, in the hands of the Left, knows no bounds, especially when there is a buck attached.

The benefits of the internet are legion, and we are not going back, but its intrusive behavior means there is no place to hide from marketers, politicians and pundits. No one, obviously, has the right to call out “Fire!” in a crowded theater, but most speech is (and should be) allowed. (Though it is curious that the Left has a harder time than the Right when it comes to permitting radical and revolutionary speakers on college campuses!) Our right to privacy, at times, seems in conflict with our rights to speak and write freely. While millions of us object to the incessant spread of spam e-mails, or even ones like mine that profess opinions, the First Amendment of the Constitution expressly prohibits the enactment of laws that abridge the freedom of speech or infringe on the freedom of the press. Mr. Clinton, it would appear, has suggested a fundamentally flawed proposition.

Admittedly, there are aspects to the internet not to our liking, such as protecting content providers against thievery, ergo the two fractious bills before Congress – SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and PIPA (Protect I.P. Act.) As well, it has been suggested by some in Congress that China practices cyber thievery as a national policy. But it is the openness of the internet that is its greatest virtue.

The feral nature of the internet is not unlike a New England town meeting – the practice of democracy in its purest form. Everybody has a chance to speak, to make him or herself heard. While a strong first selectman can attempt to control the agenda, he or she must bow to the will of the people when there is vociferous dissent. In contrast, the “people’s pledge”, a (perhaps) well-intentioned attempt by Scott Brown (R) and Elizabeth Warren (D) in their Massachusetts Senate race to control campaign donations from super PACs and other independent groups, is in actuality anti-free speech – a far worse crime. As disgusting as is the gross amount of spending on political campaigns today, it is not as reprehensible as would be the curtailing of free speech. The search for truth and free speech are inextricably intertwined.

To deny anyone the right to air his or her opinion or support – whether in favor of a particular politician or against a specific policy – would appear to violate the intent of the First Amendment, and is morally equivalent to establishing George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth (or Bill Clinton’s Internet Ministry of Truth.) Sunshine, not government intervention, has always been the best disinfectant. Let the games continue.