With Free Speech Comes Responsibility: Whistleblowing, Censorship, and Expression in the Age of COVID-19
Wenqing Ge
Misinformation often preys on the emotions and irrationality of the public. Consequently, the burden of eliminating the unchecked biases and political intrigue of the public often falls on leaders who have substantial influence over public opinion.
After the death of Li Wenliang, waves of sorrow and anger swept across China: the doctor was characterized as a whistleblower and a hero. His death was mourned by millions. The media labeled government censorship and restriction on free expression unethical and dangerous as they restrict public access to potentially vital information. Despite the popularity of these opinions in the media, they have exaggerated the role Dr. Li played in combating COVID-19.
According to China’s Infectious Disease Prevention Act, hospitals and their doctors do not have the authority to publish unchecked information about the outbreak of a disease. Rather, only public health authorities under the State Council have such power. When infected cases are identified, the hospitals must upload their information to the online reporting system for infectious disease and wait for further instructions. Experts from the CDC judge the cases according to the existing database and decide whether to report up the hierarchy. Only through such thorough investigation can health officials ensure that knowledge of a potential disease is accurate before informing the public, thus avoiding unnecessary public anxiety and enabling locals to respond appropriately. The Chinese CDC was acting in accordance with these protocols, yet the investigation could not keep up with the rapid spread of COVID-19.
Admittedly, Dr. Li was a caring citizen. On WeChat, he informed his colleagues about taking precautions for a SARS-like disease, an action any responsible person would think to undertake. Though the doctor did nothing wrong from an individual perspective, his conduct could have resulted in the spread of misinformation. The information shared by the doctor was not based on the scientific method. Dr. Li inferred that the disease was infectious only because he had briefly examined a few unidentified infected cases at that time. The hospital did not conduct the nucleic acid test to confirm his theory. Though his inference was later confirmed by the subsequent outbreak, he was only correct by chance and intuition. Dr. Li’s actions ought to be evaluated in and of itself and not by hindsight bias hinging on an outcome of which he was not certain. In general, never should warnings on the outbreak of a novel infectious disease be based on a single physician’s observations. Compared to the conclusions from an investigation by the Chinese CDC, the unconfirmed information posted by Dr. Li lacked scientific validity and might have raised unnecessary public panic if he had been incorrect. In this light, unsubstantiated information may turn out to be correct, but executive leaders cannot risk the spread of misinformation given a lack of reliable evidence and protocol. Although Dr. Li did not intend to publicize his fears, the danger of disseminating misinformation nonetheless persisted.
The Chinese public championed Dr. Li despite the fact that he released unconfirmed information partly because his case provided people with a means of venting their repressed discontent with strict censorship and limited free speech. Eventually, Dr. Li was rebranded as a whistleblower who challenged the Chinese political propaganda machine and warned the nation about an impending crisis, provoking criticism of the government and demand for free speech in China. Yet, Dr. Li intended none of the above: he only wanted to alert his friends. His simple actions were reinterpreted and taken advantage of by the media.
In the US, unchecked free expression and lack of censorship of those who have influence on public opinion has created challenges for the nation’s safety and control of COVID-19. The Trump administration did not attempt to quell panic, nonchalance, and the spread of misinformation, going so far as to encourage them instead. When thousands of American lives were confirmed to have been claimed by COVID-19, President Trump denounced the media for ”hyping” the threat of the virus and claimed it would disappear soon. He doubled down on his optimism by insisting on a plan to lift the quarantine requirements by the spring Easter holiday against warnings issued by the CDC. Infectious disease experts should have more discourse power in such a global crisis while the voice of the president is loud and misleading. As the leader of the country, President Trump’s negligent and irresponsible perspective led to laxness and inefficiency in protecting his own citizens.
Voices against scientific experts should be heavily doubted if not censored, especially when those voices carry immense weight. The president and his cabinet have attempted to further agitate the country’s attitude towards China as the nation nears its November election. They accused China of being the engineers of COVID-19 and the pandemic without evidence. Animosity towards China has been stoked, increasing racially motivated discrimination and violence against ordinary international and Asian American citizens. Groundless accusations have caused tensions to worsen on a higher level as well. Trump originally opposed quarantine measures and downplayed the seriousness of the disease. His opinions and those of his supporters have incited insurrection, which made not abiding by quarantine orders into a patriotic exercise of liberty and free speech rather than carelessly subverting pandemic control. As national leaders are inevitably endowed with more significant voices due to their power and the attention of the media, their unchecked opinions and political motivations allow misguided and dangerous views to spread and become widely accepted. This has created enormous challenges for the United States’ reaction to the pandemic.
People are now taking more radical positions, exploiting a total and unchecked freedom of speech. Freedom of speech may be taken as more of a relative concept. Regardless of the degree of free expression permitted in society, there are always people who speak louder than others and receive more attention than others. Because these voices greatly sway societal trends and public opinion, the free expression of these speakers carries enormous responsibility. A mechanism is needed to examine and mold the influential voices of public figures who lack expertise in order to prevent the consequences of their misinformation.
“In every dark hour of our national life, a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory.” -FDR
Concerning issues like today’s COVID-19 crisis, the government should be motivated to convey factual information and be more responsible in guiding public opinion. There are times for eschewing bipartisan and political motivations for the good of a nation. This pandemic is one of those times. As opposed to spreading misinformation to disarm political opponents, national leaders should impose appropriate measures to filter misinformation from a variety of sources lacking reason, preventing them from misleading and endangering their citizens.
Wenqing Ge studies at Washington University in St. Louis.