Yesterday, I posted about the US Department of Homeland Security using non-government third-parties to pursue online censorship via proxy (a violation of the First Amendment).

DHS and former DHS staff say they must patrol social media for misinformation and disinformation, to prevent “radicalization” that might turn citizens into terrorists.

Who decides the truth of false-ness of a statement?

Who regulates offline speech?

Regarding the latter, today I received two postal mailings concerning the election next week. Both claimed that if a specific candidate is elected, this candidate will change the law.

Except, in interviews with the media, including our state’s public broadcasting service, this candidate said the existing law would be enforced, not overturned and had no interest in changing it. Further, the political position lacks the power to unilaterally change laws – changing laws requires a majority of the legislature to act together.

Thus, the political mailing was disinformation – but who regulates offline speech?

We cannot regulate offline speech and legally, the government cannot regulate online speech either due to the First Amendment.