Walls of Separation
If you're reading this, you've probably heard the phrase "wall of separation" applied to the intersection of government and religion in the US. While the phrase does not appear in the Constitution, the metaphor has been referenced time and time again as a clarifier of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Not enough people get the whole thing right, unfortunately. The First Amendment prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion as the preferred (let alone sole) one of the nation, but it also prohibits the government from interfering in individuals' choices and religion-based behaviors. Government is supposed to stay out of the religion business, neither advancing nor hindering. Yes, this means that a baker cannot be compelled to create and sell product that runs against his beliefs. And, yes, this means that putting images or sculptures or other representations of the Ten Commandments on public property is also a no-no (I deep-dive that debate here).
The aforementioned stricture and protection form the first clause of the First Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Reread the bit after the first semicolon.
Now contemplate the recent revelations that the FBI, the CIA, and other government entities were deeply involved in content moderation at Twitter. If we were to ponder a religion parallel to this, it'd be as if government actors decided that certain religious beliefs should be cast in a favorable light, while others were to be suppressed or stifled.
For the picayune, the FBI was created by an act of Congress in 1870, and the CIA likewise in 1947, therefore anything done by either ultimately traces back to Congress. See: Congress shall make no law.
The heretofore clandestine involvement of multiple government organizations and actors (I repeat - clandestine - they went out of their way to keep it from being public knowledge, and continue to deny) in censoring disfavored speech, whether it be political or otherwise, is a clear violation of the spirit of the First Amendment, even if pretzel-logic and legal jujitsu makes it difficult to enforce the letter of that law. And, lest one argue proper cause - the FBI knew the Hunter Biden laptop bit was real and genuine and legit even as it peddled the “Russian disinformation” narrative to private entities in order to get them to quash it.
The current reporting is that the FBI not only held weekly meetings to pressure Twitter to suppress the laptop story ahead of the 2020 election (among other things), the agency actually paid Twitter several million dollars for "law enforcement related projects."
Stick and carrot.
Can all this be whitewashed away in a legal sense? Likely so - see the aforementioned jujitsu. Doesn't make it right, not by a long shot. Countless wrong and vile things were "legal" at one time or another, and appeal-to-law fallacies are childish evasions that should embarrass anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty. Barring the known exceptions to free speech: slander, libel, perjury, intimidation, incitement, those on the government side of things have no business mucking about in what people say in the private sector. Yes, Twitter is the private sector, and yes, Twitter gets to decide what passes through its portal, but even if Twitter invited the government’s opinions, the government must not apply any pressure to make those opinions stick.
To my friend who called this business a nothingburger about dick pics, you are dead wrong, and I hope you come around to that reality. Government agencies should stand neutral on political opinions. Individuals can obviously have them, but in their capacity as government agents, those opinions should not inform their actions. Just as Kim Davis, the county clerk who didn't want to grant marriage licenses to gay couples was told that her beliefs and her job were not to commingle, employees of the FBI, CIA, et al aren't supposed to let their personal beliefs inform their official duties. Barring matters of national security or criminality, government workers have no business influencing what private entities say or share.
That's the principle, even if it's routinely violated. The oaths of office politicians take re the Constitution should not be “I’ll find ways to legally sneak past the guard rails,” they should be “I will honor both letter and spirit.” Our society’s founding document is based on distrust of big government, and if we don't demand that such behavior cease, we abandon the liberties that so many fought so hard to unshackle and preserve.
Just as there should be a wall of separation between church and state, there should be a wall of separation between speech and state.
The wall at the southern border could not be reached for comment.
Some walls are apparently more equal than others.
A post-script. Yes, the container wall image at the fore of this article is a bit of a bait-and-switch. So mote it be.
Thank you for reading! If you enjoy The Roots of Liberty, please subscribe (if you have already, thank you!), please hit that “like” button to let me know, please share any article you like wherever you roam the Internet, and please recommend the blog to your friends.
If you really like The Roots of Liberty and want to help keep it rolling, please consider becoming a paying subscriber here at Substack, or at a lighter level as contributor to the blog via Patreon.
Thank you, again, for your support!
Peter.
From a professional experience several decades ago, I learned that the government is forbidden from intentionally misinforming the people through the media - even when it's for their own good, or even if matters of national security are at stake. At the time, I'd found the law - something Congress had passed years previously, perhaps as part of a budget - and it was unequivocal about what the Executive could and could not do, regarding intentional misleading of the public. I can't lay my finger on it now, search engines having declined to the point of uselessness, but it exists. No, they cannot plant false stories in the media, or promote false stories or use the media to quash inconvenient facts. This isn't China or Russia we're living in.
Good - as usual. And, just as some walls are more equal than others, people who are guarded 24/7/365 by people with automatic weapons want to ban US Citizens from having semiautomatic firearms.