My piece today at The Federalist explains that censorship is all about cutting you off from other people. Because if you can speak openly to others, you become isolated from them. As I explain in my book, as more people self-censor out of fear of social rejection, the more atomized we become. It's a great irony that I call the weaponization of loneliness.
This sets the stage for government regulation of personal relationships. I explain how in my article at this link: https://thefederalist.com/2024/04/05/murthy-v-missouri-is-not-just-about-coercing-big-tech-but-controling-individuals/ That's what's at stake in the Supreme Court case Murthy v. Missouri.
Here's an excerpt:
Too few people understand that the primary purpose and the main effect of political censorship is intensely personal, a point I’ve explained before here at The Federalist. In addition to cutting us off from other people and ideas, censorship instills fear of punishment for wrong think. As more people fear speaking openly, we create a spiral of silence that isolates us further. This dilutes personal relationships along with the potential for building relationships and breeds a more alienated and dysfunctional society.
Free speech is how people get to know one another, building social trust and a healthy private sphere. It’s how we are able to solve problems through the cross-pollination of ideas. It’s the first line of defense against tyranny.
A Supreme Court ruling for the government in the Murthy case would be an anti First Amendment move, which means anti-conversation and anti-friendship. It would open the door for a full-fledged attack on the private sphere of life.