Biden's 'Orwellian Ministry of Truth': Court Finds a 'Massive Attack' on Free Speech in Government Censorship Efforts
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Below is my column in the Messenger on the recent opinion finding that the Biden Administration is violating the First Amendment through a massive censorship operation. In response, many politicians and pundits are simply repeating the definition of censorship as its defense: we are banning views because they need to be banned. Every authoritarian government in history has justified censoring citizens because their views are harmful or false. Others are only focusing on the injunctive relief rather than the court's finding that these states are substantially likely to prevail on the merits in showing that the government uses social media companies as surrogates for censorship.
Here is the column:
"The most massive attack against free speech in United States history." Those words by Chief U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty are part of a 155-page opinion granting a temporary injunction, requested by Louisiana and Missouri, to prevent White House officials from meeting with tech companies about social media censorship.
The July 4 decision came six months after I testified before Congress that the Biden administration used social media companies for "censorship by surrogate." Despite furious attacks by congressional Democrats in that and later hearings, a court has now found that the evidence overwhelmingly shows systematic violation of the First Amendment by the Biden administration. Judge Doughty found that the two states "are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the government has used its power to silence the opposition."
The question is, when will the evidence of systemic censorship force Democrats in Congress to drop their unified opposition to any investigation of this unprecedented partnership of government, corporate and academic interests? That triumvirate arguably has created the most extensive censorship system we have ever seen.
According to Judge Doughty, the government used layers of coordination and consultation to "assume a role similar to an Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth.'" The court found that "the censorship alleged in this case almost exclusively targeted conservative speech."
The government is now enjoined from speaking with social media representatives for "the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech." Exceptions are made for criminal and national security concerns.
The judge's order names various agencies, including the Department of Justice, State Department, Department of Health and Human Services, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as individual officials like Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Jen Easterly, who leads the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
Mayorkas not only attempted to create the infamous Disinformation Governance Board but has given grants to an array of controversial censorship programs. I also testified recently on the efforts of Easterly, who radically extended her regulatory authority by declaring "critical infrastructure" includes "our cognitive infrastructure" and "building that resilience to misinformation and disinformation." That included barring "malinformation" that is "based on fact, but used out of context to mislead, harm, or manipulate." You read that correctly: It can be true information which the government nevertheless believes is being used for a misleading purpose.
The injunction in this case is likely to face tough scrutiny and skepticism on appeal. Doughty was previously rebuked by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit when it blocked his order to compel former White House press secretary Jen Psaki to testify in the case.
However, the judge's temporary-relief order is less important than the judicial scrutiny of this long-concealed network of censorship and blacklisting maintained by the government.
In February's hearing before the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, I warned that "the massive censorship system employed by social media companies presents the greatest loss of free speech in our history." The Trump administration had some back-channel communications with social media companies, but that was radically expanded under President Biden.
Democrats on the committee struggled to ignore the content of the then-recently released "Twitter Files" while attacking every witness who discussed those files.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) criticized me for offering "legal opinions" without working at Twitter. I later noted that it was like saying a witness should not discuss the contents of the "Pentagon Papers" unless he or she worked at the Pentagon. Wasserman Schultz tried to portray the Twitter Files allegations as mere opinions; she cut me off when I tried to explain that the Twitter Files contents — like those of the Pentagon Papers — are "facts," while the implication of those facts are opinions.
Now, a judge has laid out 155 pages of such facts, in addition to the thousands of pages of the Twitter Files.
It is, however, unlikely to change the Democrats' scorched-earth strategy of attacking every hearing witness who supported an investigation into government censorship. The attacks have continued in the media, too. Some of those objecting to this censorship were bizarrely denounced as protecting white supremacists and insurrectionists. For example, MSNBC contributor and former senator Claire McCaskill denounced subcommittee witnesses Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) as "Putin apologists."
When two journalists testified before the subcommittee about their investigations of censorship programs, Delegate Stacey Plaskett (D-Virgin Islands), the subcommittee's ranking member, called them "so-called journalists." Plaskett later suggested one of them, Matt Taibbi, be criminally investigated. Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas) and other members pressed the journalists to reveal their sources.
These attacks reflect a growing problem for Democrats who have tied the party to the cause of speech limits, blacklisting and censorship. When the party controlled both houses of Congress, these members simply denied allegations of censorship as conspiracy theories and said there was no real evidence while opposing any effort to acquire evidence.
Then Democrats lost control of the House, and Elon Musk purchased Twitter, opening up its files for full public view. The resulting Twitter Files forced everything into the open.
This censorship system included funding groups to blacklist targeted individuals and sites. With the help of companies like Microsoft, federal agencies poured millions into efforts to target not just social media accounts but the advertisers for conservative sites.
As new details emerge, Democrats have doubled down. In one hearing, former Twitter executive Anika Collier Navaroli testified on how she and her staff approached censorship. Navaroli said they pushed to remove anything they considered "dog whistles" and "coded" messaging; she said they refused to prioritize the free speech of posters but, instead, asked "whose free expression are we protecting at the expense of whose safety." She said they were unwilling to allow the safety of others "to go to the winds so that people can speak freely."
It was a chilling account of ill-defined, biased censorship. However, committee Democrats heralded her censorship work.
They also clearly agreed with the standard of former Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal that the company would "focus less on thinking about free speech" and more on "who can be heard." The Twitter Files showed that the federal government supplied thousands of names and sites of precisely who should not be heard.
The left was once the target of censorship and blacklisting during the Red Scare. Today, they have literally adopted the arguments used to target liberals and socialists.
In my hearing, Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) quoted from the 1919 decision in Schenck v. United States to justify censoring those with opposing views. When I pointed out that he was quoting from a case justifying the arrest of socialists due to their political views during the Red Scare, Goldman shot back that "we don't need a law class here."
They may not "need" such facts — but they, and the public, are going to get them from Congress and the courts. The mantra of "Nothing to see here" is fast becoming an embarrassing case of willful blindness.
Jonathan Turley, an attorney, constitutional law scholar and legal analyst, is the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at The George Washington University Law School.
Tags
Who is online
501 visitors
The American left stands front and center against free speech.
And they falsely blather on and on about "threats" to democracy.
the republican definition of freedom of speech - freedom to lie. that's cost FOX $792.5 million so far this year...
Talking about LIES........................your post is a lie.
I didn't include legal costs because FOX's attorneys are all on salary...
The part I quoted was a blatant lie.
Hope that clears up your confusion over my post.
You mean like Biden's Disinformation Governance Board that pushed the lies about Hunter's laptop that it was "Russian disinformation"
Oh wait, even the liberal media was in on it:
We can't forget about the dim bulb that was chosen to run this "Disinformation Governance Board", Nina Jankowicz .
Do us a favor and stop with the " the republican definition of freedom of speech - freedom to lie." when the Democrats have even gone to the extent to set up their own "ministry of truth" and pushed nothing but lies and censorship.
Thanks for calling out the hypocrisy.
It's so damn tiresome. I wonder if they actually believe most of what they are saying.
If they do, they're very stupid!
I'm not sure if they believe it or not, or if they are just repeating what they are directed to say.
"If they do, they're very stupid."
Seems like that is becoming more and more of a job requirement these days for elected liberal leftists.
No, they don't. I am left of you for certain and I stand for free speech. I think that anyone who wants had ought to be able to run their mouth off and get the taste of just deserts. Just like you did with your nonsense above.
I know, and in 1959 Fidel Castro told us that he wasn't a Communist.
So what? Are you calling me a liar?
In 2016 the Republicans told us that their candidate was a Republican. He wasn't. They ended up being able to control neither his actions or his words and he dragged the party down the rat hole because none of the real Republican politicians would stand up to him. Now the Republican party looks like they are going to nominate him after an abysmal showing of his true character.
One can point to certain characteristics and traits, actions and ideas espoused and displayed to gage the temperament and leanings of others. I say that I am for free speech. I am. I do not try to silence people for speaking their mind, neither do I try to silence expression by condoning the outlawing of certain people wearing certain clothes. You do and have on this forum. You have also argued that the queer community ought to go back into hiding and their actions be criminalized. So, from displayed characteristics, you would seem to be the one who is against free speech.
A slanderous lie that should not have been allowed to stand.
More evidence that the far left progressives are the real threats to our democracy and freedoms. But now they've been outed and they can't run and hide and deny the truth anymore.
Sure they can.
They will scream Jan 6th; traitors; racists; Nazis, and fascists.
If you don't agree with them they will say it confirms that you need to be silenced.
Don't forget their new definition of hate speech and misinformation is anything they don't agree with.
What is sad is that you won't hear any of them argue against your post.
"The government is now enjoined from speaking with social media representatives for "the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech." Exceptions are made for criminal and national security concerns."
I can see Joe and his minions trying to make everything a national security concern. Just like paying back student loans was a National Emergency.
That is rather scary.
Look at how the Biden Justice Dept. has treated those with differing opinions. Is it much of a stretch to think that the JD will simple label those they disagree with as "domestic terrorists"?
We have already seen such nefarious doings.
Didn't they already give that label to parents?
Exactly.
Censorship is problematic but typically overcome with a 'black market' of ideas. Censorship may limit certain speech but, in the end, cannot eliminate that speech. In fact, censorship tends to give such speech more substance.
The insidious threat to free speech is government requiring specific speech in forums that require listening to that speech. Government required speech in classrooms, as an example, is indoctrination that is the opposite of free speech. So, protecting the 1st amendment requires more than curbing censorship. It's necessary to limit government's ability to indoctrinate.