Bill Clinton: Hey, let’s have a Ministry of Truth, or something

posted at 1:45 pm on May 14, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Everywhere else but Washington, this would qualify as high irony.  In the Beltway, however, it only qualifies as another pathetic attack on free speech.  Bill Clinton attacked free speech on the Internet yesterday, telling CNBC that it would be “legitimate” for the government to create an agency to discredit political arguments and quash Internet rumors:

Bill Clinton doesn’t like all the misinformation and rumors floating on the Internet. And he thinks the United Nations or the U.S. government should create an agency to do something about it.

“It would be a legitimate thing to do,” Clinton said in an interview airing Friday on CNBC.

The agency, Clinton said, would “have to be totally transparent about where the money came from” and would have to be “independent” because “if it’s a government agency in a traditional sense, it would have no credibility whatever, particularly with a lot of the people who are most active on the internet.”

Hey, we could use existing models for a Ministry of Truth, too — kind of like NPR, the BBC in the UK, or other already-existing forms of government-controlled media:

“That is, it would be like, I don’t know, National Public Radio or BBC or something like that, except it would have to be really independent and they would not express opinions, and their mandate would be narrowly confined to identifying relevant factual errors” he said. “And also, they would also have to have citations so that they could be checked in case they made a mistake. Somebody needs to be doing it, and maybe it’s a worthy expenditure of taxpayer money.”

I could totally see this, too.  Why, let’s say a salacious rumor involving a high-ranking government official started swirling on the Intertubes.  The Ministry of Truth could then issue a televised statement, with an angry man scolding the American public by wagging his finger at us and telling us that the rumor was absolutely not true.  You know, kind of like this:

We have free speech primarily to hold government accountable, not the Internet.  The best remedy for bad speech is more speech, not government agencies churning out propaganda to protect the entrenched power elite.  And even if this was a good idea, which it most certainly is not, Bill Clinton might just be the worst possible living spokesman for it.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


George Soros got his money’s worth with the Clintons. They have been instrumental in unravelling the United States.

adamsmith on May 15, 2011 at 7:03 AM

What’s it going to take to restore Constitutional values in this country? I hope for the best, but I know the rot is too deep now to be fixed simply by an election or two.

petefrt on May 15, 2011 at 8:38 AM

Until he/they can come to the understand of what is is and what is ain’t they’ll never comprehend the specificity laid out in the constitution.

kregg on May 15, 2011 at 9:06 AM

Wow, we have attacks on the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 14th amendments in one day and two posts.

Pattosensei on May 15, 2011 at 1:10 AM

They’re just getting us used to the fact that these amendment thingies won’t mean anything within the next few years. A “public service” for the social psyche if you will.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 15, 2011 at 9:16 AM

Dreadnought on May 15, 2011 at 2:48 AM

Not to beat a dead elephant, but for the sake of clarity (Orwell’s defining literary characteristic, anyway), I wasn’t implying Socialism had been necessarily drifting “out of fashion” then, and certainly not that it has become so now (or that Orwell was even susceptible to fashions). But rather that it has mutated into something Orwell would have found contemptible, dehumanizating and even impractical. I have only my instincts to insist that Orwell was more and other than a “Socialist”; he was a true artist, i.e., restless and a truth-seeker ultimately beyond the grip of any “ism.” He died relatively young. To think he wouldn’t have been continuing to develop his political-artistic-moral muscles is not an option for me. But I admit, this is romantic conjecture based on my appreciation of his work and admiration for his character.

rrpjr on May 15, 2011 at 9:24 AM


…coming to a newsstand near you.


Hooray, Billy Jeff!

Oops. Your communist tendencies are showing.

hillbillyjim on May 15, 2011 at 9:36 AM


Pablo Snooze on May 15, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Obama has replaced two previous democratic presidents from where they excelled further than any othe prsidents in our history. Obama has replaced Bill Clinton as being the most compulsive charismatic liar to ever serve as presidnt in our history. Then he went on to replace Jimmah Carter as the move naive and incompetent president to ever reside in the White House in our history. Now Obama has his sights set on being the most corrupt president in our history. Seems like the accolades will never stop.

volsense on May 15, 2011 at 12:55 PM

I hope the Dems try it, because while “a riot is an ugly thing, it may be just about time we had one!”

drunyan8315 on May 15, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Billy Jeff has always been at war with the truth.

drunyan8315 on May 15, 2011 at 1:45 PM

Bill Clinton: Hey, let’s have a Ministry of Truth, or something

The guy who couldn’t tell the truth is now interested in the truth.

Start with your mirror Bill Clinton.

rukiddingme on May 15, 2011 at 9:56 PM