Digital Despotism: Free Expression, The “Free Market”, and the Free World
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opin-
ions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media and
regardless of frontiers.”
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, along with the Internation Covenant on Civil and Po-
litical Rights, the American First Amendment, and countless other storied documents in the human rights
pantheon are unambiguous in their defense of free expression irrespective of media.
History is dotted with atrocities committed against those courageous enough to speak their mind.
Governments acting, in what many consider to be the most tyrannical of fashion, have long persecuted those
whose beliefs don’t fit with the party line. May 4th, 1970, the National Guard of the United States murdered 4
students for protesting the Vietnam War. June 4th, 1989 saw the CCP declare martial law and massacre hun-
dreds, if not thousands, of people exercising their right to expression. From the 1930s through the 1950s over
18 million Soviet citizens were sent to Gulags for various minor crimes, common among which was political
dissent. There are, of course, other incidents of restriction of expression of a less violent, but equally chilling,
nature. In 1985, a campaign swept across the United States to ban explicit music for the sake of upholding
decent national character. One needn’t look too close to draw disturbing parallels with Hitler’s obsession with
eradicating degenerate art. Perhaps even more disturbing, if only for how little it’s spoken of, was the fact that
until 2003 British law prohibited “the promotion of homosexuality” by local authorities. No nation’s hands are
clean and the right to think and speak as one pleases is a right won with blood.
In recent years, free speech, once championed primarily by young, left-leaning, university students and
progressives, has fallen under increased scrutiny. Those who, generations before, would have died on the hill
for the cause now question the institution. Admittedly, the social climate has changed, almost certainly for the
better. The Thatcher era policy banning the promotion of homosexuality was eclipsed by David Cameron being
awarded “Ally of the Year” by Pinknews for his work in allowing homosexual couples to marry. The mainstream,
while far from perfect, is becoming a more tolerant place and with that comes a natural intolerance of intoler-
ant views. Thus the liberals, radicals, and progressives of the past have gained an odd bedfellow in free speech
advocacy-- a loose amalgamation of social conservatives and offensive comedians on the more innocuous end
of the spectrum, and fascists and racists on the other end-- the latter sitting comfortably beyond the pale.
Regardless of what one thinks of free expression-- whether it is limitless or within reason, whether it includes
hate speech or does not-- the fact that we can have this dinner tonight owes itself, at least partially, to this
liberty.
When Eleanor Roosevelt oversaw the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
committed the United Nations to uphold free expression, she set an important precedent. By explicitly speci-
fying the right applied to “any media” the freedom of expression was not constrained to screen or canvas, stage
or print, protest or telegraph, it applied unambiguously to all ways humans talk to fellow humans. Without
even realizing it, the right to free expression applied, from the beginning to the internet.
For better or worse, the internet is today, what newsstands and coffee shops were in the past. It is both
the source and home of our collective knowledge, and, more importantly, the commons in which we discuss it.
The internet is alienating and cruel, yet it brings friends face to face despite being continents apart. It allowed
for the organization of demonstrations reflecting the best of the human spirit and yet facilitated mass perver-
sion by extremist groups. The internet is multifaceted, essential, and in principle completely amoral.
Perhaps the most interesting feature of the internet is the fact that it is unlike any other form of commu-
nication. Hypothetically, anyone could distribute a manuscript with access to pen and ink even if all publishers
refused them. Similarly, one could stage a play on public land were they blacklisted from all the words theatres.
Yet one can be kicked off the internet, without warning, and for any reason. Humanity’s forum for discussion is
owned by several very powerful individuals. These people aren’t nations beholden to the U.N., they are rather
judge, jury, and executioner, and beholden to none.
On the 7th of January 2021, Twitter banned the sitting President of the United States. Regardless of how
one feels about the situation the implications are immense. Arguably the most powerful man in the world was
kicked out of the commons, no longer allowed a seat at the table in the world’s forums. Governments, once
themselves the (albeit poor) arbiters of free expression were now undeniably beholden to private interests.
Unlike a town square or any physical forum, the internet is far better gatekept. “Free Speech” alter-
native, Parler, was taken down shortly after President Trump’s removal from Twitter. Financial institutions
refused its payments, app distribution channels removed it, and web hosts refused it a domain. One would
invariably have to bypass these institutions to create a digital space truly committed to free expression, which,
even for a cabal of the world’s richest people, would be impossible.
The more liberal, left, progressive, and even centrist among us might think this is no issue-- after all,
the pervasive narrative is that these causes benefit big-tech’s domination of speech. However, barring concerns
that banning the man 48% of the American electorate voted for would lead these voters to feel even more left
behind, allowing their views to fester and intensify, the internet has not been kind to leftists either. Twitter has
a long history of removing, unverifying, shadow banning, or otherwise silencing left-wing voices. Right-wing-
ers have turned to using the left’s tactic of mass reporting against them, silencing the left in rebuttal. Notably,
socialist journalist Nathan J. Robinson was fired from the Guardian for a tweet critical of U.S. military aid to
Isreal. Perhaps more disturbingly the global tech elite have been very quick to remove accounts of activists, like
the Occupy movement, who pose a threat to their stranglehold on culture.
The great silent evil underlying all this is that the policy for removal is quiet and opaque and, more of-
ten than not, automated. The Carnegie Club’s own Facebook profile was permanently banned for mentioning
“covid” “politics” and “China” in the same sentence when we had a banker join us from China to speak about
covid recovery. Trump’s ban was hotly debated, but bans are mostly silent and unjustified-- no one cares about
someone unremarkable being gone, and that unremarkable someone is powerless to protest..
Where do we go from here?
Is this an issue? What is the solution?
Should there be a digital bill of rights?
There are a multitude of questions one could ask here. So tonight, we invite you all to discuss, from all angles,
just what is to be done?