J.D. Tuccille decries the support given by many progressives to the Brazilian government’s censorship of Elon Musk. Two slices:
The open letter supporting Brazilian government efforts (here in Portuguese and thanks to Tyler Cowen for the pointer) is remarkably conspiratorial in tone. It accuses tech companies and their political allies of (in English translation) undermining Brazil’s plans for “digital independence” and engaging in an “effort to restrict the ability of sovereign nations to set a digital development agenda free from the control of US-based megacorporations.”
According to the signers, the Brazilian state “intends to force Big Tech to pay fair taxes, comply with local laws, and be held accountable for the social externalities of their business models, which often promote violence and inequality.” They claim, “these efforts have been met with attacks from X’s owner and right-wing leaders who complain about democracy and freedom of expression.”
Well, yes. The Brazilian government’s actions do excite worries about the health of democracy and free expression in the country—and not just from the right wing. Observers worried about the Brazilian government’s treatment of speech and dissent well before X and Elon Musk got involved.
…..
Unfortunately, free speech is under siege around the world, including in supposedly free countries.
“Dramatic erosions of freedom of expression in democracies are not isolated events,” The Future of Free Speech found in its 2023 report, The Free Speech Recession Hits Home. “They are part of a broader and global free speech recession that has afflicted the heartland of free expression in open democracies, and which threatens to roll back hard-won freedoms.” The report tracks “free speech trends across 22 open democracies” including Australia, Canada, France, South Korea, the U.S. and the entire European Union.
To this, the signers of the open letter seem to say, “more, please!”
David Henderson isn’t buying the Trump-Vance tale about Haitians in Springfield.
Gary Galles of course is correct: “In policy, vagueness is no virtue.”
Peggy Noonan describes Kamala Harris as “an artless dodger.” A slice:
Kamala Harris has made quite an impression. That walk is a stride, and she has appetite—she loves this thing, running for high office. She has sentiments—she loves to say what divides us isn’t as big as what unites us, which, though a dreadful cliché, is true.
But in terms of policy she is coming across as wholly without substance.
Joe Biden stepped aside, and Ms. Harris was elevated, two months ago. That is enough time at least to start making clear what she believes, wants and means to do. She hasn’t.
This week she couldn’t or wouldn’t answer a single question straight, and people could see it. She is an artless dodger.
[DBx: What Harris says unquestionably is empty, but it seems to me certain that, once in power, she will push and support policies that have plenty of substance, nearly all of which will be harmful to the economy and to individual freedom and the rule of law.]
David Henderson writes more about the late economist Walter Oi.
Steven Greenhut rightly ridicules the hubris of California’s politicians.
