Free speech, the bedrock of democracy, is increasingly under siege around the world as governments and media companies wage war against what they label as “disinformation.” From Brazil banning X (formerly Twitter) to the UK passing laws that impose prison time for spreading falsehoods, the question looms large: Who gets to decide what’s disinformation?
In the United States, we’ve already witnessed how the term can be manipulated to stifle political speech. One of the most glaring examples came in 2020 when the Hunter Biden laptop story was summarily dismissed as “Russian disinformation” by pundits, politicians, and the media. Fast-forward to 2024, and we know the story was genuine. This wasn’t an innocent mistake—this was a deliberate suppression of truth for political gain. The implications for free speech are enormous: if powerful figures can declare truths they don’t like as “disinformation,” what else could they bury?
Imagine if King George III had declared Thomas Paine’s Common Sense disinformation. Revolutionary ideas that sparked America’s fight for independence would have been snuffed out before they could inspire action. Today’s efforts to label dissent as disinformation are a modern-day version of this. The question is, how far will it go?
The Abuse of “Fact-Checking”
This issue became even more glaring during the most recent presidential debates. Fact-checkers, ostensibly there to hold candidates accountable, focused their scrutiny overwhelmingly on Donald Trump. Meanwhile, disinformation coming from Kamala Harris went virtually unchecked. For instance, Harris repeated the debunked claim that Trump called white supremacists in Charlottesville “very fine people,” ignoring the fact that Trump explicitly condemned white supremacy during the same speech. Additionally, her comments about Trump’s tax plan, which she claimed only benefited the wealthy, ignored the substantial tax cuts given to middle-class Americans.
This selective “fact-checking” undermines the integrity of political discourse. When fact-checkers only scrutinize one side of the debate, it becomes clear that their real agenda is not truth but control of the narrative. This tactic echoes the broader trend of using “disinformation” claims to stifle conservative voices and bolster progressive ones.
Government-Defined Disinformation: A Slippery Slope
When governments take on the responsibility of defining what constitutes disinformation, the consequences are dire. The media’s partnership with the political establishment has long been used to control the narrative. Since the 1960s, media outlets have shaped public perception in ways that undermine conservative movements, often ignoring inconvenient facts.
A prime example is the media’s portrayal of the Vietnam War’s Tet Offensive. Despite U.S. military leaders like General William Westmoreland emphasizing that the offensive was a military failure for North Vietnam, journalists like Walter Cronkite painted it as a disaster for the U.S., turning public opinion against the war. Fast-forward to the 2004 election, when CBS ran with falsified documents in an attempt to discredit President George W. Bush. The media’s willingness to promote falsehoods is not new, and neither is their eagerness to suppress inconvenient truths—like the Hunter Biden laptop story.
The media and political class have become skilled at using the term “disinformation” as a weapon to control the narrative and silence dissent. But who will they target next? The danger of allowing any institution to police truth is clear: today, it’s about silencing conservatives; tomorrow, it could be any voice that challenges the status quo.
Political Speech in the Crosshairs
The crackdown on disinformation doesn’t just silence falsehoods; it threatens legitimate political discourse. In the UK, where disinformation laws carry the threat of prison time, we see a worrying precedent: political speech could easily be labeled as disinformation, effectively censoring opposition voices. If the government can decide what’s true, dissenting views are at risk of being stamped out altogether.
In the U.S., media and political elites have already worked together to push this agenda. Discussions about illegal immigration, for example, are frequently labeled xenophobic or dismissed as disinformation, despite the facts. Many Americans are concerned about crime rates in areas with high levels of illegal immigration, yet these voices are often silenced under the pretext of promoting “truth” and “harmony.”
When citizens are afraid to voice their concerns or question the official narrative for fear of being branded as disinformation peddlers, the erosion of free speech is complete. Free speech should allow people to challenge ideas, debate policies, and express their viewpoints, not fear the government’s wrath for doing so.
The Urgent Need to Protect Free Speech
As conservatives, we must remain vigilant in defending free speech from this growing tide of censorship. The reality is that today’s disinformation laws, which may seem targeted at extremists, will soon be used to silence any form of political dissent. Free speech is not a privilege to be regulated by the government—it is a fundamental right, one that must be protected even when it challenges those in power.
The question we face is not simply, “Who decides what is disinformation?” but, “Should anyone have that power at all?” History teaches us that those in power often seek to control the narrative to maintain their grip on that power. Whether it’s a monarch silencing revolutionary pamphlets or modern politicians labeling opposition speech as disinformation, the result is the same: a dangerous erosion of free speech.
The road to truth is paved with open debate, not censorship. If we allow governments and media elites to define and regulate speech under the pretense of combating disinformation, we risk losing the very freedoms that sustain our democratic society.
Direct Line News is a Maryland-based free-access publication committed to the Republican reform tradition.
About The Author
