Losing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton went on a rant about “fake news” the other day.
She spoke out about “the epidemic of malicious… so-called fake news” which “can have real-world consequences.”
“It is a danger that needs to be addressed and addressed quickly,” she said, praising “bipartisan legislation” and calling for “leaders in the public and private sector” to act.
The irony! Most of what comes out of Hillary Clinton’s mouth is a lie. She’s one of the biggest fakes of all time. Most people know this, and it’s one reason why she didn’t win the presidency.
Her premise? That fake news is a danger. Why? Because most people, according to this patronizing and arrogant view, are unable to discern truth from fiction. In a nation where people elected her in a landslide, I’d tend to agree. But the recent election shows we’re a much more divided country than she and her supporters in government, academia and media realized. And somebody has to take the hit.
Who’s taking the hit? Freedom of speech, of course. It’s what all dictators want. Authoritarians and dictators don’t restrict speech only because they feel like it. They always cloak it in the national interest, or for the good of society. Of course Hillary Clinton cares about the “safety” and well-being of society — her own society, not the “deplorables” who refused to vote for her.
Of course genuinely fake news, where it exists, is a bad thing. But this is not about fake news. It’s about dissension. Hillary Clinton considers all dissension fake, and she’s just like any other authoritarian mentality in this respect. Our system of government already provides for means to take action against libel, fraud and slander. Even though most of the nation’s laws do not apply to her, we already have an abundance of laws to protect the rest of us from just about everything imaginable (except for her).
Clinton says we must take action quickly. What kind of action? She doesn’t specify. What would a law against fake news look like? Would it establish a government board, like we’ve already done with the FCC and Obamacare, to oversee the dissemination of news? How well would dissenting opinions fare on a board run by someone like her? What would become of Breitbart, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh or anyone else critical of political officials in a nation where the government gets to determine what constitutes valid and invalid news?
We already have ample protections against fake news. One is critical thinking. Another is common sense. Another is the capacity to discern and think. The very last thing we need is another government law or government agency to do our thinking for us.
Of course, a failed hack like Hillary Clinton would love that, wouldn’t she? If government were only permitted to do for news and speech what it has already done to education, health care, banking, transportation and the national debt then surely she could have squeaked by to become the nation’s nasty schoolmarm-in-chief.
We’re so very fortunate that didn’t happen. And her latest asinine remarks are yet another reminder.
Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1
Dr. Hurd’s writings read on the air by Rush Limbaugh! Read more HERE.