AOC’s Media Literacy is a Fancy Word for Eliminating Freedom of Speech

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez needs to spend some time in a law library. Although she may have majored in economics and international relations, it has become clear that she doesn’t understand the law – and more specifically, the Constitution.

AOC has identified that Congress is exploring “media literacy initiatives.” This includes a way to rein in some of the misinformation that led to the storming of the U.S. Capitol Building.

Let’s forget for a moment that her suggestion is, as some are calling it, “wholly un-American.”

What we really need to look at is the meaning of “media literacy.”

Literacy is about the competency to read and write. As such, media literacy would be the ability to read and write in the media.

While AOC was on a live stream on Instagram, she read a question from a viewer. That question had to do with media literacy initiatives so that the country could heal.

AOC answered by explaining that the commission is exploring on an investigatory level. She also goes on to explain how she believes it is important that the media environment be reined in to avoid being able to “spew disinformation and misinformation.”

What the Squad leader doesn’t realize is that disinformation and misinformation have the same meaning – that it’s false information designed to deceive the reader. Perhaps if anyone needs a lesson in literacy, it’s the representative from the Bronx.

Quite a few right-leaning media watchdogs are now questioning what exactly this means. Who is doing the reining in and to what extent? Who is to determine what information is to be labeled as “false?”

Steve Doocy of Fox & Friends has reached out to Joe Concha of The Hill to figure out what would happen to the media. Concha was quick to point out the similarities to 1984 by Orwell.

He also asked an important question: who would be sitting on the committee to determine what is and isn’t the truth. He continued by guessing names, “Eric Swalwell? Adam Schiff? Because they seem to have some challenges when it comes to telling the truth.”

There are some big problems with the game of truth because there are some differences. AOC herself has said in interviews that people tend to miss the forest through the trees – they’re concerned about being factually and semantically correct as opposed to being morally right.

Oh, well if that’s the case, facts are thrown directly out the window. Then, we have to worry about being right or wrong based on a moral perspective – and we all know that the moral compass of a liberal is not on due north.

Concha brings up good points because if the liberals are going to start policing the media based on a moral perspective, he wants to know what he can and cannot say. What can he agree with? At what point would he be pulled off the air?

He hypothesizes about arguing against defunding the police or adding two states that would result in four more Democratic Senators. Would that make him morally wrong? Would he have to testify before the committee?

Regulating speech sets a dangerous precedent. It would turn us into China or North Korea. It would put us dangerously close to the dystopian future in the 1984 novel, too, where Americans would have no way to truly think for themselves anymore.

It’s not just Concha or Doocy that have noticed what AOC is saying. David Harsanyi recently titled a piece for the New York Post about AOC and other progressives having the goal to silence the press.

There’s no way to argue morals when it comes to dealing with the liberals. Clearly, they’re willing to look the other way on various truths. And since when did the media always become about reporting true facts – why can’t there be conversations and hypotheticals and opinions? Is the op-ed going to disappear forever?

A truth commission would be well and truly the death of free speech. And with AOC in favor of “media literacy,” we’re clearly not done fighting for our constitutional rights.