The Misinformation & Disinformation Con

The war on free speech – a right that no one in the free world ever thought would ever be questioned – is at full throttle. The Leftist-aligned mainstream media complex in the United States (including social media) is executing its “usual suspect” election-year censorship campaigns against those whose political and ideological positions differ from theirs. And now, we are witnessing a historically oppressive government-backed move to persecute people for their politics in Great Britain.

In all of these egregious acts, one thing is a constant. The socio-political ideology that champions this censorship only and always exists on the far-Left. Then, we shouldn’t be surprised. Censorship and re-definitive propaganda have been a staple of Marxists and fascists, and today’s far-Left is a cadre of Marxists who employ fascist tactics.

It All Started With Hate Speech Laws

In the aftermath of World War II, the international community sought, in vain, to prevent the resurgence of totalitarian regimes and the spread of oppressive ideologies that could lead to genocide. This well-intentioned but extremely naive effort immediately crashed into the realities that the Soviet Union and, later, Communist China would bring to the world.

Regardless, the increasingly useless United Nations adopted the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights in 1966. In Article 19, of the “treaty” it states:

1. “Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. “The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary…”

In the United States, the First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech, has shaped hate speech laws. The US Supreme Court has historically been reluctant to restrict speech, even when it is considered hate speech, and rightly so because the definitions of “hate” and “hate speech” are subjective to who provides the definition.

However, some states have enacted laws criminalizing certain forms of hate speech, such as incitement to violence or – and this is where the very idea of hate speech laws gets extremely shady – defamation of a particular group.

A reference to hate speech is included in federal hate crime laws; the most notable of these laws is the 2009 Hate Crime Prevention Act. This law extends federal hate crime protections to cover crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. While the law does not specifically criminalize hate speech, it does criminalize violent acts motivated by hate speech or other forms of expression that are intended to intimidate or terrorize individuals based on their race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. This means that if an individual engages in hate speech that leads to a violent act, they may be subject to federal hate crime charges.

But again, even in this well-intentioned law, the definition of what is considered “hate speech” that can lead to violence is subjective, and subjectivity in legislation like this opens the law up to be abused by ideologues and zealots. If calling someone a Nazi or a fascist, or a homo – or transphobe is done to intimidate, denigrate, or terrorize an individual, isn’t that a form of hate speech? And if so, shouldn’t almost all of the far-Left – elected and rank-and-file – be rounded up and prosecuted for hate crimes? After all, this “hate” facilitated an assassination attempt on a past United States president.

Hate speech laws, because they are subjective, are antithetical to free speech because they limit the expression of ideas and opinions, even if those ideas and opinions are considered objectionable or offensive to some or the majority of people. And because these laws are subjective, they can be used to silence dissent and stifle open debate, ultimately leading to an uninformed, disengaged, and oppressed society; to the suppression of minority viewpoints and legitimate criticism of certain people and groups.

The Cancer Is Metastisized In The UK

As a litany of news organizations reported, The UK has gone off the rails where stomping on free speech is concerned. In fact, they are so far off the rails that a local police commissioner had the unmitigated gall to threaten sovereign US citizens in the United States with legal action over the freedom to engage in political speech.

As FOX and SKY News reported on August 9, 2024:

“London's Metropolitan Police chief warned that officials will not only be cracking down on British citizens for commentary on the riots in the UK, but on American citizens as well.

“‘We will throw the full force of the law at people. And whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you,’ Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley told Sky News….”

It’s no wonder the Framers included free speech as the first and foremost issue in the Bill of Rights. Evidently, Britain hasn’t changed all that much on the issue.

Disingenuous Disinformation & Misinformation Labels

Born of the concept of hate speech, the topics of misinformation and disinformation are everywhere.

In the mainstream media, the talking heads of the punditry – on both sides of the aisle – clutch their pearls over what they deem to be the misinformation and disinformation coming from their political and ideological counterparts, even as their preferred candidates engage in using both to their opportunistic benefit.

Meanwhile, the social media behemoths (sans X since Elon Musk liberated that platform from its censorship overlords) continue to foist the canard of “fact checkers” on their users. This laughable gaggle of miscreants has been revealed by none other than Facebook's executives as nothing more than a group of unbridled activists inflicting their political and ideological opinions on Facebook’s users, censoring opinions with which they disagree…yet they still employ them. 

The term misinformation refers to inaccurate or false information that is spread unintentionally, often due to a lack of knowledge or understanding. It can include errors, rumors, myths, or misunderstandings that are shared with the belief that they are true. Regardless of the reason behind the belief that any bit of misinformation is true, it is still information that is held by an individual; it is their opinion, and, especially where political speech is concerned, it is a protected opinion.

Disinformation, on the other hand, refers to intentionally misleading or false information that is spread with the deliberate intent to deceive or manipulate. It can include propaganda, hoaxes, fake news, or manipulated images or videos. It is often spread for political, financial, or social gain, as it influences public opinion, sows confusion, or undermines trust in institutions. That said, and again this is especially true of political disinformation; it is protected as long as it doesn’t foment violence, which, by the by, always occurs at the hands of radical Leftists.

The definitions understood, in reality, there is no “disinformation” or “misinformation”; there is only bad information. And the only cure for bad information is that it is debunked and rendered ineffective by exposure to facts verified as true; facts proven and cited to be true. Censorship and cancellation – or erasure under the deceitful guise of “violating community standards” – destroy the moment to correct the bad information “for the record.”

The faux labels of disinformation and misinformation are redefinition creations of the neo-Marxist totalitarian movement that use them, in conjunction with a willing mainstream media complex that is starving for control and relevance, to silence all opposition to their addiction to power and control.

But the more their schemes are exposed to truth; the more their “disinformation” is exposed as a vehicle for the totalitarian, hate-based addiction to control systemic in their movement, the less effective they are in manipulating the people.

There is no “disinformation” or “misinformation.” There is only bad information. And even the expression of bad information is protected, no matter what London’s police commissioner believes to be the case.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
– S.G. Tallentyre (Evelyn Beatrice Hall)