No doubt you’ve read quite a bit about Net Neutrality lately.  You’ve seen it on the news, watched it clog your Facebook and Twitter feeds.  You may have even seen it here on WordPress.  You’ve seen banners and reminders on various webpages you frequent.  Suffice to say, you’ve heard plenty.  You may even have tired of the subject by now.  Fret not: I’m not about to write about Net Neutrality.  I’m going to write about North Korea.

We’ve all seen the news out of the so-called Hermit Kingdom: military parades attended by thousands upon thousands of people, all apparently thrilled to be there, some outwardly moved to tears by the mere sight of their “Dear Leader”.  To Americans, the scene is almost surreal.  How can these people support a man like Kim Jong Un?  How can they overlook the nuclear provocations, the labor camps, the tortures and beatings and suppression of dissent?  How can they extoll this man as they live in starvation and enforced poverty, knowing that he is responsible, living in luxury as they starve?

The answer is simple: they don’t know.

The people of North Korea (not all, but many) truly believe that Kim is their salvation.  They believe that their hardships are not the result of their leader’s cruelty, but rather somehow the fault of the United States and other western nations.  They believe that we, and all other nations like ours, are truly evil; that we hate them, and richly crave their destruction above all else.  And they believe that Kim, Dear Leader, is the one man standing in the way of that.

And they believe all of this because that’s what they hear.  It’s what they’re told, day in and day out, and though some might suspect that their government lies to them, how could they know?  They believe, because they receive information from only one source.  Every website is operated (and sanitized) by the same group of people.  Every news broadcast is issued by the same channel, in the same studio, delivered by the exact same person, day after day, week after week, year after year.  They believe because they simply have no other option.  They do not have a choice.

Choice, safe to say, is something Americans have come to take for granted, and that stands as a true tragedy.  A poll conducted not long before the 2016 election showed that an alarming number of conservative voters believed our nation would be better off under an authoritarian dictatorship.  Following the election, many of those same voters insisted in poll after poll that, because the election turned out the way they wanted, potential Russian interference did not bother them.  So, here we stand, with so many of us ready, perhaps even eager, to surrender a privilege that the people of North Korea, or China, or Russia do not have.  A privilege that Russians have been arrested over.  A privilege Chinese journalists have been executed for.

Obviously, the end of Net Neutrality would carry a vast array of implications.  Some of those implications would not necessarily be negative…at least for some of us.  However, let’s forget the “Fast Lane” debate for a moment.  Let’s put aside financial concerns, and focus on something far more important.  For in losing Net Neutrality, we stand to lose something far more valuable than our Netflix binging habits: we risk losing the truth.

In a novel I recently completed, I described the concept of freedom of the press thus: the truth arises as one voice out of many.  Indeed, democracy itself functions in much the same way: order rising from chaos.  Hundreds, thousands, even millions of voices ultimately resolving themselves into a single arrow, pointing unfailingly toward the truth.  The truth is not subjective, but neither is it guaranteed.  Freedom of the press is not a guarantee of the truth; rather, it guarantees us the right to search for it.

The end of Net Neutrality would present internet service providers with a dark ability: the capacity to circumvent the First Amendment.  ISPs would be permitted to slow down, or even block, not only websites that compete with their own (your Netflix, for instance), but also those that disagree with them.  Google, for instance, could block access to Fox News or Breitbart on their wireless networks, which are used by Starbucks, among other stores.  Right-leaning ISPs could retaliate by allowing access only to conservative outlets like Fox News and Breitbart.  In this way, the very people who provide our information could decide how much of it we can see, distorting our perception of the truth.

It bears noting, in the interest of fairness, that numerous lawmakers opposed to Net Neutrality have insisted that their motivations are purely financial.  They have stressed, repeatedly, that the purpose of the repeal is not to restrict access to information, or suppress free speech.  And yet, every draft of potential new internet rules includes provisions to allow exactly that.  The message, it seems, is that we should allow them the ability to restrict free speech, and then trust that they will not.  If they have no intention of restricting our rights, why do they need the capacity to do so?

Knowledge, as the tired adage goes, is power.  When freely given, information is a powerful tool, but when restricted, it becomes an equally potent weapon.  That weapon has been wielded with skill and precision by countless autocrats throughout history and even today, invariably with grim and bloody results.

From now until Sunday (when I’ll be posting my next Writer’s Desk), I will be altering my page to slow down the loading of certain posts.  This is an optional WordPress initiative intended to draw attention to the plight of Net Neutrality.  But I hope that you, my readers, will look beyond the minor annoyance of long loading times.  The attack on Net Neutrality isn’t about freedom: it’s about taking it.  And anyone who suggests otherwise either does not understand how our democracy works, or is hoping that you don’t.  So think, educate yourself, speak out and contact your congresspersons.  Do it now, while you still can.