“Yeh, it would be nice to enforce truth online, but how?”

America’s First Amendment enshrined a right as shocking as it was novel in a world ruled by autocrats. Citizens could speak their minds – and the government would protect them? You gotta be kidding! Tyrants’ first order of business since time immemorial has been to stifle dissent.

Our First Amendment worked wonders, unleashing the intelligence of legions, involving folks in government, supercharging the arts, science, self-expression. Its spectacular success made many Americans First Amendment fanatics. Only the most egregious calumny merited judicial correction!

That was then. Somehow our dunderheaded Founders failed to anticipate the Internet. If only they’d foreseen the day when lies could be instantly promulgated and fiendishly weaponized, and respect for probity would have shriveled into a quaint shibboleth from a bygone hour!

Malicious lies poison discourse no less than noxious chemicals poison the aquifer. The First Amendment was intended to protect our right to discuss but not distort. How can we cleanse our communications of filth without sanctioning censorship, which wannabe dictators will use to silence critics. (Most executives are wannabe dictators – it makes life so much simpler.)

It’s not that difficult, if we decide to.

You know how easy it is, on any information site, to like or share an article? Takes a few seconds and finger-clicks. (If you feel like sharing these words, I’ll wait.) With like ease, a reader could flag a supposed lie. This objection would have an official status, like a citizen’s arrest, obligating the purveyor of that lie – the ISP (Internet Service Provider – Google, YouTube, X, et al.) – to assess the accuracy and gravity of the charge and credibility of the accuser. With AI and tallying tools, the Internet could accomplish most of this assessment rapidly and mechanically. Captious complaints and innocuous mistakes might be permitted or corrected. Graver violations would be more gravely penalized.

Constructing such a filtration system, while it would take some doing, is neither implausible nor impossible: where there’s a will, there’s a way. But we the people must first recognize the risks of permitting such pernicious pollution. Not only are innocents injured and citizens befuddled by malicious lies, the fabric of community is shredded. Trump’s successful effort to undermine trust in our elections is – and will long remain – a hateful crime against democracy and humanity. Our First Amendment must not protect such traitors to our national attempt.

Would such a system prevent some truths from being shared? You bet. Any filter risks arresting the fair with the foul. But the dangers of contamination outweigh the cost of cleansing. We all should be more careful what we say – loose lips sink ships. Even my pristine mouth merits an occasional rinse.

Will this happen? Unlikely. Too many miscreants shield their malfeasance with the First Amendment (witness Fox News, Alex Jones, Donald Trump). Too many idealists ignore the dangers of their absolutism. All the rights in our Bill of Rights need restraint and adjustment. (The Second Amendment allows private uzis? Puh-leeze!) Our glorious First Amendment may prove our undoing if we don’t take care.

I’m not hopeful. I doubt democracy is workable long-term. I thought this a month ago more firmly. But then, abracadabra, our politics changed. Biden graduated from chump to champ overnight, Kamala galloped in on her white horse, and hope erupted like grass in the desert after rain. Individually and collectively, we can always do better, and sometimes – amazingly – we manage it.

Without truth, there can be no community, no society, only a grim war of all against all. Let’s not.