Alexander Vindman is a Jewish Ukrainian American military official who played a key role in the first attempt to impeach Donald Trump. He created a fantasy narrative around a phone call Trump made to the Ukrainian president regarding the dirty dealings of Joe Biden.
He is a hero of the left.
He now works for the Brookings Institute’s “Lawfare” think tank, and he’s come up with a great new idea: sue right-wing media in order to silence them.
He writes for the Lawfare blog:
Recent events have made the need for accountability more pressing than ever. Should anyone be surprised that viewers of right-wing media are radicalized when media personalities themselves promote radical ideas based on lies?
But while the rioters are being held accountable through the criminal justice system—and Congress at least had a chance to hold the former president accountable through the impeachment process—how can Americans hold the right-wing media responsible for its role in the attack? The mob that attacked the Capitol was born of hatred fomented by the right-wing media. These insurrectionists were raised for years on a steady diet of disinformation and half-truths, which produced the fertile fields for radicalization.
The First Amendment gravely limits the available tools to seek accountability for the right-wing media. Policymakers cannot, after all, tell media organizations what to say. Except in the most extreme situations, which are unlikely ever to arise, prosecutors also cannot accuse them of incitement.
Civil consequences, rather than governmental restrictions on First Amendment rights, could be a meaningful way to take what are fundamentally money-making ventures and demand truth from them, instill rigor in their reporting, and uphold accountability. Like a tabloid being sued and paying severe penalties, media companies and right-wing media personalities will claim that what’s at stake is freedom of speech. But defamation is not covered by the First Amendment, so this is, by definition, not true. And the generous standards in defamation law for purposes of protecting the press offer a true safe haven for good-faith actors even when they err. Putting companies in fear of the real costs in civil damages for slander, libel, and false claims that can cumulatively incite violence and that can individually harm actual human beings should have a restraining effect on their behavior.
Just in case that point wasn’t fine enough for you, he put this as his header image:
He’s primarily talking about Tucker Carlson, one would assume. Tucker has almost all of his advertisers removed already as part of a conspiracy to silence him.
Of course, this “sue them into silence” program is already happening to Alex Jones, who is being sued to death for claiming that Sandy Hook was indeed a Sandy Hoax.
There is a question hanging in the air right now:
Following the arrest of Ricky Vaughn for memes, will the government shift into a mode of prosecuting people for speech? Or will they continue on the present path of using “private companies” to censor people, while also suing them?
It’s unclear which path they will take.
Surely, the fact that they’ve indicted Ricky already means that they have begun prosecuting people for speech. But their current play of using other methods has worked very well so far, and it might not make sense to get things too hot.
I’m sure their decision will be based on a series of internet simulations gauging how people will react.