Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) recently called for heightened “media literacy” in a video posted on social media. However, her remarks have sparked widespread controversy, with critics accusing her of advocating for censorship under the guise of combatting misinformation.
In her video, Ocasio-Cortez suggested that Congress needs to take proactive measures to curb the spread of misinformation and disinformation within the media landscape. “You know, I do think that — several members of Congress in some of my discussions have brought up media literacy because that is a part of what happened here,” she explained. “And we’re going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so that you can’t just spew disinformation and misinformation.”
While the congresswoman emphasized the importance of separating opinion from falsehood, her remarks raised alarm bells for many. Critics interpreted her call to “rein in” the media as a potential encroachment on free speech, particularly when it comes to what constitutes “misinformation.” She continued, “It’s one thing to have differing opinions, but it’s another thing entirely to just say things that are false. And so that’s something that we’re looking into.”
First Amendment Concerns
Ocasio-Cortez’s critics were quick to point out that the First Amendment does not provide exceptions for so-called disinformation or falsehoods. The government, they argue, has neither the responsibility nor the constitutional right to dictate what individuals or the press can say, even if it’s inaccurate. Any attempt to regulate speech—whether labeled as “disinformation” or “misinformation”—could easily blur the line between safeguarding the public and infringing on free speech rights.
One social media user highlighted the historical roots of the term “disinformation” in the Soviet Union, where it was weaponized by the state to control narratives and suppress dissent. “The term ‘dezinformatsiya’ was coined by Josef Stalin in the 1920s as the name of the section of the KGB tasked with deceiving enemies and influencing public opinion,” the user wrote. “And here we have AOC telling us that ‘you (the people) can’t just spew disinformation and misinformation. That’s something WE are looking into.’ Who decides what is disinformation, AOC? Who decides what is false?”
The post raised a critical question: if the government takes on the role of deciding what information is valid, what’s to prevent it from using that power to silence opposition, control narratives, or eliminate dissent? The parallels to authoritarian regimes, which historically used state-run media to manipulate and suppress free thought, were not lost on critics.
The Danger of Government-Controlled Speech
Many see Ocasio-Cortez’s call for media literacy as the first step down a dangerous path toward government-controlled speech. If Congress or any other government body is granted the power to determine what is disinformation, the door opens to potential abuse. Governments throughout history have used such powers to suppress political opposition and consolidate control, often under the pretense of protecting the public from falsehoods.
“If they control what you’re allowed to say, they control what you’re allowed to think,” warned another critic. “Authoritarians like AOC also think they’re the only ones who can discern truth from falsehood.”
The heart of the issue lies in the inherent subjectivity of truth. While Ocasio-Cortez’s concern about misinformation is valid—especially in the digital age, where false narratives can spread like wildfire—the question remains: Who gets to decide what qualifies as disinformation? Opinions, perspectives, and even facts can often be interpreted differently depending on one’s political or ideological stance. If the government is given the power to regulate this, many worry it could lead to a chilling effect on free speech.
The Balancing Act: Free Speech vs. Misinformation
Ocasio-Cortez’s comments reflect a broader debate that has intensified in recent years. The rise of social media has allowed misinformation to spread more rapidly than ever before, leading to real-world consequences. From public health misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic to election-related falsehoods, there are legitimate concerns about the impact of disinformation on democracy and public safety.
Yet, balancing the fight against misinformation with the protection of free speech is a delicate task. Efforts to counteract disinformation, especially if led by the government, must be handled with extreme caution to avoid infringing on the rights of citizens to express their views, however contentious or unpopular they may be.
Ocasio-Cortez’s remarks highlight the fine line between protecting the public from harmful falsehoods and overstepping into censorship. Critics argue that any attempt by the government to regulate speech risks undermining the fundamental right to free expression. Others, however, see media literacy as a necessary tool to ensure a well-informed public that can distinguish between fact and fiction.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s call for greater media literacy has ignited a fierce debate over free speech, censorship, and the role of government in regulating information. While her concerns about misinformation are valid, the potential consequences of government intervention in speech regulation cannot be ignored. As the conversation around media literacy continues, it is crucial to safeguard the constitutional principles that protect freedom of expression, ensuring that efforts to combat disinformation do not come at the cost of personal liberty.
WATCH:
View this post on Instagram