Climate crisis activists have dreamed up a campaign that they bombastically call a “treaty” to ban advertising of high-carbon products – in other words, anything they, or their sponsors, don’t like. These groups are not working alone; they are politically funded and politically motivated.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is taking Canada down a dangerous path of censorship to regulate streaming services and social media platforms. The next regulation phase comes as some podcasters will soon have to register with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.
The United States Supreme Court has agreed to review the legitimacy of two landmark laws from Texas and Florida aimed at preventing tech giants from censoring content posted on their platforms. This decision has been rightly hailed as potentially resulting in a pivotal constitutional judgment on how the rights enshrined in the First Amendment apply to tech dominions in an increasingly digital world.
The chilling of speech has been doubly unconstitutional because it affects the freedom to read opposing views. The First Amendment protects not only the right to express views but also the right to hear what others have to say. Although often presented as a distinct right, the right to hear can be considered an essential element of the right to speak.
America’s reputation as “the land of the free” is rooted in the Anglo-Saxon legal and political tradition, not in diversity and multiculturalism. Law as a shield of the people instead of a weapon in the hands of rulers is a British achievement that Britain’s American colonies inherited. It was the accomplishment of a specific ethnicity known as Anglo-Saxon. Bringing rulers to the same accountability to law as the lowest peasant was a centuries-long process beginning with Alfred the Great in the 9th century and culminating in the Glorious Revolution of 1680.