If Russian Bots in the 2016 campaign were used to jam the internet to preempt human beings from posting or obtaining information about the candidates that was true, those bots were not engaged in meaningful speech protected by the First Amendment.
First, the bots invaded our Nation’s cyberspace. Cyber warfare is a major “front” today. At half-time (or between innings) of televised sports events, United States armed forces recruit, with some commercials focused on cyber warfare. The Pentagon spends billions on this front. If a hostile foreign power—such as Russia, a dictatorship that supplies weapons to forces that today shoot at and kill members of our military—invades our cyber space to disrupt our elections, the acts of cyber invasion, though in the guise of blog posts or Twitter rants, do not constitute speech. They are acts similar to bombs dropped in warfare.
Second, any “intent” was not to provide information that was true, but to spread disinformation with the goal to harm our democratic system
Third, computers are not humans. Machines are not protected by the Constitution. Hostile foreign powers are not protected by the First Amendment.
We can void the election results of 2016. To do less is to leave in power those who benefitted from Russia’s collusion with a psychopathic narcissist.
Attacks the past few months, on me and on the SCOTUS cases that sought to void the 2016 elections, were brought, in large part, by anonymous posters. Some, when traced back to sources, were found not to be “people.” And here I took some of the attacks personally. There are no citations to authority in today’s blog. I wonder if the bots can provide authority to negate what I have written?
You need to be a member of Civil Discourse Now to add comments!
Join Civil Discourse Now