24°F
weather icon Clear

EDITORIAL: When misinformation comes from the government

Here’s an important reason that the First Amendment prevents government from policing the spread of what it deems misinformation: Sometimes, the misinformation comes from the government.

On Tuesday, the public learned about the explosive allegations of a senior-level, multidecade employee of the CIA. The unnamed whistleblower shared information on how the CIA’s COVID Discovery Team looked into the origins of the coronavirus.

“According to the whistleblower, at the end of its review, six of the seven members of the Team believed the intelligence and science were sufficient to make a low confidence assessment that COVID-19 originated from a laboratory in Wuhan, China,” a Tuesday letter from the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence read. The letter went to CIA Director William Burns.

That alone would be a bombshell. In February 2020, Sen. Tom Cotton was pilloried for discussing it. The Washington Post accused him of “repeating a coronavirus conspiracy theory that was already debunked.”

As the coronavirus crisis evolved, social media companies even began censoring people from posting supposed misinformation. For instance, Facebook once deemed it a false claim that the virus was man-made.

But what came next is even more jaw-dropping. The letter said the whistleblower testified that “the other six members were given a significant monetary incentive to change their position.”

If true — and a full investigation is warranted — the government paid its own employees to produce misinformation. Now, imagine if the government were able to censor speech it labeled misinformation while paying people to produce actual misinformation.

That nightmare scenario may have already happened. A recent ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found the government outsourced its censorship efforts to social media companies. In Missouri v. Biden, the court found that government officials frequently met with and pressured those businesses to remove information they objected to.

Social media companies “gave the officials access to an expedited reporting system, downgraded or removed flagged posts, and deplatformed users,” the opinion reads. The government isn’t allowed to launder its censorious desires through private companies.

This is a major scandal, amplified by the fact that the government may have been simultaneously paying officials to produce misinformation. As these episodes show, the First Amendment’s free speech protections remain as vital as ever.

MOST READ
In case you missed it
Don't miss the big stories. Like us on Facebook.
THE LATEST
EDITORIAL: Trump should offer vision of hope, opportunuty

Mr. Trump is a divisive figure at a time of divisive politics, but he has an opportunity in his address to set forth a path forward of unity and respect without dwelling on past insults or affronts.

EDITORIAL: The hearings continue

The Senate began the show hearings for Donald Trump’s presidential Cabinet nominees this week. Many Democrats did not distinguish themselves.

EDITORIAL: Lombardo delivers solid, but uninspiring speech

Ronald Reagan once urged the Republican Party to broaden its appeal by “raising a banner of bold colors, no pale pastels.” Gov. Joe Lombardo doesn’t appear to be taking that advice.

EDITORIAL: Regulatory thicket will dog victims of California fires

If Gov. Newsom wants to facilitate reconstruction, he might also request technical help from those running states and municipalities who actually know how to encourage development rather than relying on those expert in killing it.

MORE STORIES