Columns, Constitutional Law, Free Speech, Media, Politics

“Before it’s too Late”: Democrats Shift From Corporate Censorship to State Censorship

Twitter LogoBelow is my column in USA Today on how the Musk purchase of Twitter has forced politicians and pundits to move from corporate censorship to calls for good old-fashioned state censorship. Indeed, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) has declared Musk’s pledge to restore free speech values on social media as threatening Democracy itself. She has promised that “there are going to be rules” to block such changes. She is not alone. Former President Obama has declared “regulation has to be part of the answer” to disinformation. For her part, Hillary Clinton is looking to Europe to fill the vacuum and called upon her European counterparts to pass a massive censorship law to “bolster global democracy before it’s too late.”

Here is the column:

“A brave new nightmare.” Those words from former Labor Secretary Robert Reich described the threat created by Elon Musk’s bid to restore free speech values by buying Twitter.

Yet, despite warnings that censorship is necessary “for democracy to survive,” neither the Tesla CEO and billionaire nor ordinary citizens appear to be sufficiently terrified of free speech. Twitter confirmed Monday that Musk will acquire the company in a deal worth $44 billion. Once the deal is complete, Twitter will become a privately held company.

Progressives, in the meantime, have adopted a dangerous shift in their strategy of calling for corporations to censor speech.

Last week, former President Barack Obama made this shift clear in his much covered speech at Stanford University. Just days after Musk re-enforced his bid for Twitter with the support of many in the free speech community, Obama warned that social media was “tilting us in the wrong direction.” He called for more censorship of disinformation while calling himself “pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist.”

Obama has never been viewed as an ally on free speech by those of us who have been attacked for our “absolutist” views. Moreover, calling for censorship as a free speech absolutist is like claiming to be a vegetarian while calling for mandatory meat consumption.

Obama favors free speech only if it does not include disinformation, including what he considers to be “lies, conspiracy theories, junk science, quackery, racist tracts and misogynist screeds.”

However, it was notable that Obama called himself “pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist,” not a free speech absolutist. The point became clear later in the speech when Obama noted that the First Amendment does not restrict private businesses from censoring speech. The First Amendment is not the full measure or definition of free speech, which many consider a human right.

For years, the First Amendment distinction has been the focus of liberals who discovered a way to circumvent constitutional bans on censorship by using companies like Twitter and Facebook. Now, that successful strategy could be curtailed as shareholders join figures like Musk in objecting to corporations and media acting like a surrogate state media.

Faced with that prospect, Democrats are falling back to their final line of defense – and finally being honest about their past use of corporate surrogates. They are now calling for outright state censorship. Obama declared: “This is an opportunity, it’s a chance that we should welcome for governments to take on a big important problem and prove that democracy and innovation can coexist.”

He is talking about imposing “standards” on companies to force them to censor “lies” and “disinformation.”

As is often the case, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stripped away any niceties or nuance. Clinton called for the European Union to pass the Digital Services Act (DSA), a measure widely denounced by free speech advocates as a massive censorship measure. Clinton warned that governments need to act now because “for too long, tech platforms have amplified disinformation and extremism with no accountability. The EU is poised to do something about it.”

Clinton’s call for censoring disinformation was breathtakingly hypocritical. President Obama was briefed by his CIA Director John Brennan on “alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.” The intelligence suggested it was “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.”

Moreover, her call for censorship came just weeks after special counsel John Durham offered more details about the accusation that her campaign manufactured a false Russian collusion theory. One of Clinton’s former lawyers is under indictment for the effort. Clinton personally tweeted out the disinformation that is the subject of the federal prosecution. And the Federal Election Commission recently fined her campaign for hiding the funding of the Steele dossier.

Given that history, it would be easy to dismiss Clinton’s calls as almost comically self-serving. However, the 27-nation EU just did what she demanded. It gave preliminary approval to the act, which would subject companies to censorship standards at the risk of punitive financial or even criminal measures.

If implemented, it might not matter if Musk seeks to restore free speech values at Twitter. Figures like Clinton are now going to the EU to effectively force companies to continue to censor users.

Faced with liability across Europe, the companies could be forced to base their policies on the lowest common denominator for free speech.

Countries like Germany and France have spent decades criminalizing speech and imposing speech controls on their populations. That is why the premise of the DSA is so menacing.

European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager was ecstatic in declaring that it is “not a slogan anymore, that what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now it is a real thing. Democracy’s back.”

Sound familiar? Freedom is tyranny, and democracy demands speech controls.

Under the DSA, “users will be empowered to report illegal content online and online platforms will have to act quickly.” This includes speech that is not only viewed as “disinformation” but also “incitement.”

Academics have increasingly echoed the call for such censorship. Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith and University of Arizona law professor Andrew Keane Woods have called for Chinese-style censorship of the internet, stating in The Atlantic that “in the great debate of the past two decades about freedom versus control of the network, China was largely right and the United States was largely wrong.”

A glimpse of that future was made clear by Twitter last week, when the company declared that it would ban any ads disagreeing with its view of climate change. Previously, Democratic senators demanded that Twitter expand censorship to include blocking disinformation on climate change as well as an array of other areas.

The push to pass the DSA brings many U.S. politicians full circle but also exposes the true motivation of what is euphemistically called “content moderation.” Democrats turned to corporate allies to impose censorship programs that they could not impose directly under the First Amendment.

Now that Musk’s potential purchase of Twitter could blow apart that unified corporate alliance, they are seeking to use the EU to reimpose censorship obligations. Again, such restrictions would not trigger the First Amendment because they are being imposed by foreign governments.

The result would be a delicious victory for the anti-free speech movement. Musk may buy Twitter only to find himself forced to curtail free speech against the wishes of his customers and his new company.

Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley

242 thoughts on ““Before it’s too Late”: Democrats Shift From Corporate Censorship to State Censorship”

    1. As stated it would require a Constitutional amendment from the 50 States. Something the socialists never heard existing. They would see it as a Christmas Tree planted in a hog trough

  2. Democrats may want to remember this cuts both ways. Democrats should research the February 2001 case of 1st A,emdment/corporate coercion by researching the now defunct “Qwest Communications” then led by CEO Joseph Nacchio.

    About 6 months before 9/11, when no wartime emergency existed, the Bush Administration was apparently attempting to censor, silence and punish “political enemies” by arm-twisting Joseph Nacchio into participating in felony warrantless spying on his customers.

    If you factor in the “Monica Goodling” purge of federal employees that committed the crime of being Democrats, LGBT federal employees and their sympathizers, one could reasonably argue that Bush was attempting to silence Democrats – government coercing private communications companies.
    This is all documented by Congress and every major news organization. To obtain immunity from prosecution, Goodling revealed the entire purge of federal employees.

    Nacchio refused to participate in the felony scheme and was later sent to prison for about 2 years by the Bush DOJ. After being released from prison, Nacchio claimed that it was punishment for not rewarding government coercion by Bush’s Justice Department.

    Democrats please don’t be like Bush!

  3. The six military Armed forces divisions:
    In simple terms, the U.S. Armed Forces are made up of the six military branches: Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, Navy and, most recently, Space Force.

    You can add: “The Networks/Media” as the Unlisted (Covert) Seventh Division.

  5. Free speech?

    Members of the Grateful Dead explain the meaning of the Iko Iko song

    Hint: What is the meaning of Iko Iko song?
    “Iko Iko” was like a victory chant that the Indians would shout. “Jock-A-Mo” was a chant that was called when the Indians went into battle.

  6. Years ago, heard a psychologist discussing the “Totalitarian Mind” which many (not all) government bureaucrats seem to be ailing from.

    The psychologist explained that when bureaucrats have this ailment they are basically “control freaks” and their world view is basically “if they aren’t in totalitarian control, at all times, then things are out of control”.

    It explains some bureaucrats weakening our computer security, by mandating back-doors into technology. The zeal for control actually makes it easier for criminals to hack our devices. The problem is the bureaucrats don’t reimburse us for the hacking.

    The Framers of the U.S. Constitution essentially designed “free range citizens” – it’s none of the government’s business unless a citizen trespasses into unconstitutional or illegal territory. A citizen following laws and the U.S. Constitution have a “right to be left alone”.

    The “Totalitarian Minded” bureaucrats support “preemption doctrines” – they believe everything is their business and basically every citizen should have a dossier from birth to death. They feel compelled to censor and control everything. They perceive themselves as having extrajudicial authority above any law and above any constitution.

    An Inconvenient Truth: government officials and their contractors swear a supreme and superseding loyalty oath – Oath of Office – to not violate anyone’s constitutional rights including 1st Amendment censorship and preemption searches illegal under the 4th Amendment. They basically take an oath to not be totalitarian officials.

    1. “They basically take an oath to not be totalitarian officials” :”Basically” is the key word, and the Trump party takes no such oath. Nor will they honor it.

  7. Port Charles [The Cover-Up: Methods go into Action]

    Censorship
    Democrats Waging A War On Twitter Don’t Want ‘Transparency,’ They Want Power
    By: Kylee Zempel
    April 27, 2022
    https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/27/democrats-waging-a-war-on-twitter-dont-want-transparency-they-want-power/

    Propaganda King Adam Schiff Appears Upset About Elon Musk’s Twitter Takeover
    By: Katie Pavlich
    Apr 27, 2022
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2022/04/27/adam-schiff-has-concerns-about-misinformation-on-twitter-n2606418

      1. There is no government entity called the “Disinformation Governance Board”

            1. Is this part of your attempt to disrupt? Try again. It works.

              If not Google Disinformation Governance Board to tackle spread of misinformation in U.S., focusing on Russia and U.S.-Mexico border From CBS. There were many in the Google list . I picked one almost randomly.

              1. Yeah, it’s working now.

                CBS says this Board exists. But where is the government website for this Board?

                1. “But where is the government website for this Board?”

                  The unknown is greater than the known. That is why you start off stupidly. You deal only with the known and only that tiny part of the known that you are aware of and agree with.

                  The Russia scandal was a known to you and true until the unknown was revealed. Then, the Russia scandal became the Russia Hoax, but did you ever admit to being wrong? No. We saw the same with the Steele Dossier, which was obviously garbage from the start. Did you admit it was a fraud? No. You were wrong about almost everything, but when you tally your score, you forget about everything in the past and forget about all the unknowns that became knowns. Then you repeat your mistakes over and over again.

                  Lately, you have been trying to prove yourself right on the Diversity Board issue. You started with virtually calling everyone else fools and liars for stating its existence. From there, you moved your position to it doesn’t exist. Then it wasn’t on the .gov site. Then it wasn’t created yet. When others provided evidence that many knew of its existence for a long time before, you started to explain yourself post after post trying to show how you were right all along in denying its existence. Doesn’t that sound foolish even to you?

                  You talk about how valuable your skills are in some type of math and how you worked with famous people. They have skills. They delve into the unknown. You don’t. That makes them scientists and ATS a technician.

            2. The link worked for me.

              But CBS doesn’t link to any government board to substantiate its claim.

              1. Really, you are still sticking your head in the sand ?

                We do not need a ministry of propoganda – we already have the whitehouse press secretary for that.

                1. We don’t have a ministry of propaganda. It exists only in your imagination.

  8. December 5, 2018: Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, most of Turley’s readers are aware of who she is, made a set of statements that caused me to do a double-take, even a triple-take to make absolutely certain I heard her words correctly. To read her comments in the original, do a simple internet search. In essence, she stated Democrats are very smart, and the public at large lacks the capacity to comprehend what Democrats are saying, doing, and trying to accomplish.
    And so the news that there is going to be a federal ‘ministry of truth’ could be viewed as Mazie’s dream come true?

    One might ask if those 50 ‘intelligence professionals’ who put their signatures on the line stating that the New York Post’s disclosures about the Hunter Biden laptop in October of 2020 should be at the front of the line of those who spread misinformation/disinformation and would deserve governmental punishment.
    Would Donald J. Trump be held in violation of the new rules, yet to be established, for having said that his crowds at his inauguration were the biggest ever?
    Would Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut be punished for having spread the false information about his prior military service, which didn’t exist?
    Would Mayorkis be held accountable for making a clearly false statement in the last few days that he has the border with Mexico well managed/successfully managed?
    would Biden be punished for having said US troops would see first-hand what’s going on in Ukraine, when Biden was sitting with those troops in Poland?

    which begs the question — who will be ‘exempt’ from this ministry of truth’s reach?

    Let’s ask Mazie Hirono – shall we?

    1. Crazie Mazie would simply respond with “I find that deeply offensive…” and thus disable any rational discussion from that point forward.

    2. “In essence, she stated Democrats are very smart, and the public at large lacks the capacity to comprehend what Democrats are saying, doing, and trying to accomplish.”

      No, she said “One of the things that we Democrats have a really hard time is connecting to people’s hearts instead of here [pointing at her head].” “We’re really good at shoving out all the information that touch people here [points to the brain] but not here [points to the heart].” That’s a comment about Democrats’ strengths and weaknesses, not one suggesting that “the public at large lacks the capacity to comprehend what Democrats are saying.”

      1. Democrats buy votes and enslave the people they say they serve. Like ATS, they lie.

        1. You are the one and only ATS, and you project your own lies onto others.

          1. Lies?

            “You’re trying to move the goalposts”

            ATS: You moved the goalposts a long time ago when you moved them from the Capitol Building to everywhere on the Capitol Grounds. When you moved the goalposts to discuss firearms, you forget that you were wrong in their use and the injuries/ deaths to law enforcement. The only person shot and killed was Ashli Babbitt, who you called a Stupid Woman. She was shot almost point-blank with her arms and legs spread apart in full view. You were deceptive about who was in the room she was entering and the risk she created to Congress. You knew nothing about her, her motives or what she was trying to do. You don’t care that the details of her death have not been adequately released. To you, despite the apology, she is just a Stupid Woman.

            You also argued about how the protestors entered the building. Today with the videos on display, we can see the Capitol police letting the protestors enter the building. Of course, that moves your goalposts again because, according to you previously, all the arrested protestors did something wrong. Now, with the videos available, we see a protestor getting off because the judge found he did nothing wrong, which was proven in the videos. With the knowledge that people can be proven innocent based on video recordings, you place another roadblock into their proof. You argue against releasing the White House videos and then say that they may not contain material evidence. Another backward and deceitful argument against the Brady Law material argument which would lead to a fairer trial. That is expected from you because you are a fascist who seems to desire violence to further his cause. (Ahsli Babbitt is partial proof of that opinion) Damn the videos, says ATS, move full speed ahead to prosecute and convict people, innocent or not; to the h-ll with the Brady Law and anyone that believes differently than the Fuhrer.

            When you asked for a court case showing where Trump had won, ‘just one case,’ in court, you moved the goalposts because you were given that one case and ran away until faced with another poster who provided an entire list of court cases. That was too much for your credibility, not his, for you immediately insinuated that the report’s writers might not be credible. Unfortunately, for your credibility, each case was clearly labeled with the name of the case hyperlinked for proof.

            On the other hand, you continuously quote unverified reports from the Washington Post, moving your goalposts every time there is new material proving your source to be wrong. Nonetheless, you consider those sources credible.

            There are too many lies, deception, and too much movement of goalposts in almost all your postings. You are not credible, and any response you provide has to be reevaluated entirely because your deception has no end.

  10. “The push to pass the DSA brings many U.S. politicians full circle but also exposes the true motivation of what is euphemistically called “content modification.” Democrats turned to corporate allies to impose censorship programs that they could not impose directly under the First Amendment.”
    ***************************
    Exactly unconstitutional. These woke corporations and radical Dims are like pirates, hostis humani generis – the enemy of all mankind. Resist them any way you can but especially by calling them out publicly often.

  11. Dumb smokers got no reason……
    Dumb smokers got no reason!
    Dumb smokers got no reason to live!

    They have filthy lungs and rotted veins.
    They won’t live long and have stupid brains!

    Don’t want no dumb smokers round here!

  12. Free Speech: R.I.P.

    By establishing the “Disinformation Governance Board” (DGB), the Left has killed free speech in America.

    The administration (read, Obama and his minions) claims, dishonestly, that DGB will use the government’s police powers to combat “disinformation.” In reality, this is censorship (and clearly unConstitutional). It is the criminalizing of any opinions, ideas, speech that some Higher Authority arbitrarily decrees to be “disinformation.” It is government force directed at the individual’s mind. For the Left, “disinformation” is the secular equivalent of “blasphemy.”

    Where did they house DGB? In the Department of Education? No. In Health and Human Services? No.

    DGB exists in the Department of Homeland Security — a massive *law enforcement* agency. That is the establishment of thought “crimes” and of “thought police” — in America?! if you dissent from the Establishment’s opinions, you are guilty of spreading “disinformation,” and are an enemy of the State. DGB makes dissent a “crime” — in America?! Jail? Merely a fine? A “reeducation” camp? Only time will tell.

    And who are to be the first victims of the new censors? Some prominent person or organization. Twitter? Fox News? Turley? Whoever the target, the motivation will be to maximize the propaganda value of terrorizing lesser dissenters.

    “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” (George Washington)

    Prepare for the slaughter.

    1. There is no government entity called the “Disinformation Governance Board”

      It seems you are spreading disinformation by pretending that there is.

      2. Are you being deceptive again? Such a board is being considered. You try to convince through trickery, but that only works for a short time. Your time is up.

        1. If it’s only “being considered,” then right now it doesn’t exist.

          Maybe it will exist in the future, maybe it won’t.

          1. Whatever, but it shows that you don’t know what you are talking about. Your time is up. Too many lies. Too much deception. Even some on the left are learning you are toxic.

      4. DGB has existed for months. Mayorkas announced its existence during his congressional testimony.

  13. If the freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we maybe led like sheep to the slaughter – George Washington

    The fact remains, we need every idea, every counter argument, every opinion, and every voice in order to come to a sensible and reasonable understanding of a problem, challenge or event.
    We need critical thinking.
    You cannot come to intellectual understanding when only one side dominates the discussion.

  14. It’s not hyperbole any more to say we’re living in an authorcratic state.
    Statism has come to fruition in America.
    The danger is real.
    Does the gold star go on your right or left lapel?

  15. What would be wrong with simply stamping “Opinion” at the top of the comment? The one posting could add his own footnotes to his opinion or viewpoint for fact-checkers if he or she wanted to. That’s what online newspapers do.

  16. So disgusting, tyrannical and a clear violation of the Constitution! Everyone has their own opinions about everything and are 100% entitled under the Constitution to express their views. And when you analyze what they want to censor, it’s clearly to cover up crimes, lies and corruption. It’s nothing but communism, fascism and CCP and Jesuit influences at all. America, so sadly, is steadily, step by step repudiating every principle of its Constitution. God will not put up with it for long — He s the one who established our national upon the broad foundation of civil and religious liberty; national apostasy is leading to eventual national ruin.

  17. Remember back when America was a free country, and if a liberal didn’t like what you said, they could just turn their head and walk away? We still have that freedom to just walk away instead of restricting everything under the sun.

    We should go back to that so that at least everyone can be heard (left or right), and not just the party of choice through the MSM and Big Tech avenues.

  18. So much of this conversation is about whether Dr Turley has ever uttered a sentence that offended someone or seemed hypocritical…and so you advocate to discount or ignore everything else he’s ever written or said. That’s just preposterous. Each of us has, at times, said something stupid, non-sensical, insensitive or untrue, but that doesn’t mean that you can ignore everything else that person has said or will say. No one can stand up to the principle of being right on every subject, all the time, throughout his or her life. JFK is idolized, yet was an adulterer. And there are countless other examples. Wake up people. You have the freedom (today at least) to listen to or ignore anyone, but it would be a mistake to forever disregard someone based on one thing they said or wrote that you didn’t like or disagreed with. You might have to weigh or consider what was said, as opposed to just discounting it because he was wrong on something else or said something you didn’t like…and yeah, that’s a bit more work than just dismissing everything he ever said or will say. Given that we have the freedom to not read this blog (or any other), why are you reading it at all? “Everyone is ignorant, only about different things.” –Will Rogers

  19. The “censoring” of speech done by Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Google, Amazon and other entities is perfectly “legal”.
    No one is forced to participate or use the products provided by these entities.
    When freedom of speech is restrained by any government entity, media or other entities our Liberty is at stake. The very idea that critical information about one candidate was held back while false information about the other was promoted means that our right to a free and fair election was stolen.
    We can not believe anything from newspapers, TV radio, podcasts and social media.
    The majority of people are unaware of what is going on, they fail to see the lies of those in politics, they are not aware of the manipulation of the media and tech companies.
    The majority of American citizens are too stupid too remain free.
    Some of us see that there is something wrong, a major problem, not just with government or politicians, but with society itself that has turned their back on the concepts contained within the Supreme law of this Republic, our existing United States Constitution.

    1. If a private corporation censors speech in coordination with the government, it becomes a First Amendment issue.

    2. So Elon can use the same bias against the left that twitter has applied to the right.
      You know to even the playing field.
      The left cannot stand free speech much less having to take their own medicine.

    3. The majority of American citizens are too stupid too remain free.< And YOU are at the apex of that conclusion.

  20. The news yesterday that the dept of homeland security has established a Disinformation Governing Board seems to have caught the White House off guard, as the press sec , Ms Psaki and her subordinates could offer no details regarding “the board”.
    This has resulted in the expected ( chilling) comparison to Orwell”s Ministry of Truth.

    It was also revealed that the person to head “the board” formerly worked at the Wilson Center in their disinformation department.

    Interesting posting on the Wilson Center website:

    https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/ministry-truth-2021-fighting-fake-news-old-fashioned-way

    What powers does this board have, will there be transparency regarding what constitutes disinformation and will it be limited as to what topics will fall within its purview; these are my initial thoughts , amount others that more knowledgeable persons may have.

    1. Of specific interest to the Congress & the people they represent should be: from what funding has the board been created or will be operated, with input from which organizations and agencies, how were the board members selected and on what basis, who determined the successful candidates, finally did the Agency receive permission from the Executive to create this entity, and if not by who’s authority was it stood up.

    2. “The news yesterday that the dept of homeland security has established a Disinformation Governing Board seems to have caught the White House off guard,”

      There is no government entity called the “Disinformation Governing Board.”

Comments are closed.