Below is my column in the Hill on the first hearings this week to be held by the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. It could be one of the most consequential investigations for free speech in decades if it pulls back the curtain on government censorship programs. After the historic release of the Twitter Files by Elon Musk, questions remain on any similar coordination with other social media companies with federal agencies like the FBI to target views considered “disinformation” or “misinformation.”
Here is the column:
This coming week a new House select subcommittee will hold its first hearing on the FBI and the possible “weaponization” of government agencies. A variety of such controversies have contributed to plunging public trust in government and the FBI in particular.
The role of the FBI in prior scandals will remain a point of heated debate in Congress. However, members of both parties should be able to agree on the need to investigate one of the most serious allegations: Censorship by surrogate.
Many of the allegations of FBI bias are worthy of investigation. Some of those allegations are problems of personnel who can be removed. But a far more menacing problem has emerged in recent months with the release of information from Twitter.
The “Twitter files” revealed an FBI operation to monitor and censor social media content — an effort so overwhelming and intrusive that Twitter staff at one point complained internally that “they are probing & pushing everywhere.” The reports have indicated that dozens of FBI employees worked on the identification and removal of material on a wide range of subjects and that Twitter largely carried out their requests.
Nor was it just the FBI, apparently. Emails reveal FBI figures like a San Francisco assistant special agent in charge asking Twitter executives to “invite an OGA” (or “Other Government Organization”) to an upcoming meeting. A week later, Stacia Cardille, a senior Twitter legal executive, indicated the OGA was the CIA, an agency under strict limits regarding domestic activities.
Twitter’s own ranks included dozens of ex-FBI agents and executives, including James Baker, who featured greatly in prior FBI instances of alleged bias.
The Twitter files also show various FBI offices monitoring social media and flagging “misleading” information on various subjects.
The dozens of disclosed emails are only a fraction of Twitter’s files and do not include still-undisclosed but apparent government coordination with Facebook and other social media companies. Much of that work apparently was done through the multi-agency Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF), which operated secretly it seems to censor citizens.
Ironically, during the outcry over establishing a Disinformation Governance Board at the Department of Homeland Security, Biden administration officials had to have known they already were employing an extensive censorship system. When the administration finally relented and disbanded the disinformation board, that censorship work appears to have continued unimpeded through the FITF and agency censors.
According to reports, one email in August 2022 sent “long lists of newspapers, tweets or YouTube videos” deemed to be voicing “anti-Ukraine narratives.” Even satirical and comedy sites reportedly were pegged by the social media police.
What is most striking is that the FBI was not responding to false claims about its operations. Instead, these censorship demands were the result of policing “misinformation” and “disinformation” on subjects ranging from political corruption to elections.
Some apologists continue to defend this process, saying the FBI was only objecting to disinformation the way that citizens did on Twitter. That is not true; the government reportedly used back channels and regular meetings to flag unacceptable statements. Indeed, even if it were true, many things are more dangerous when done by government. When your neighbor attacks your opinion, it is just the crank next door. But when it is your government on the attack, it is far more threatening and stigmatizing.
Even if this operation did not cross the constitutional line, there are ample reasons why a democracy does not want the government in the business of targeting those whom it views as misleading or misinforming the public. While the FBI has every reason to pursue criminal fraud, this operation appears to have targeted speech it deemed harmful to political or social discourse.
For years, many politicians and pundits have dismissed free-speech concerns by noting that the First Amendment only applies to the government. So long as corporations do the censoring, they contend, it is not a free-speech problem.
This obviously is wrong on several fronts.
The First Amendment is not the exclusive measure of free speech. Corporate censorship of political commentaries or news stories are denials of free speech that harm our democratic system.
Second, this is a First Amendment violation. The Twitter files have substantiated long-standing concerns over “censorship by surrogate” or proxy. As with other amendments like the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches or seizures, the government cannot use private agents to do indirectly what it cannot do directly. Just as a police officer cannot direct a security guard to break into an apartment and conduct a search, the FBI cannot use Twitter to censor Americans.
To be fair, there were occasions when Twitter reportedly balked at government demands for raw political censorship — in one case, a demand by Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Cal.) led a frustrated Twitter censor to object that “We don’t do this.”
Nevertheless, Twitter’s management certainly now seems to admit that the company worked as an agent of the FBI and carried out most demands for social media suspensions, removals or blocks of individuals. At the same time, the FBI pushed for closer collaboration on content removal.
We do not know the full extent of this operation or its impact, but Congress should want to know if the FBI and other agencies created a system of censorship-by-surrogate. The only reason we now have Twitter’s previously secret communications is because an eccentric billionaire bought the company.
The broader effort with other companies could well constitute the largest censorship program ever run by the government — a system designed to escape both public and judicial scrutiny. It also shows how it is no longer necessary to have a “Ministry of Information” to maintain a state media: You can have an effective state media by consent rather than by coercion or control.
The FBI’s response to disclosure of these long-secret communications is particularly chilling. When some critics denounced it as raw censorship, the FBI accused them of being “conspiracy theorists … feeding the American public misinformation.” So, criticism of the FBI’s work to censor citizens resulted in an official statement denouncing those citizens.
None of these denials or attacks succeed, however. The public understands the threat and strongly supports an investigation into the FBI’s role in censoring social media. Despite the push for censorship by some politicians and pundits, most Americans still want free-speech protections. It is in our DNA.
This country was founded on deep commitments to free speech and limited government — and that constitutional tradition is no conspiracy theory.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at The George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
In a corrupt fascist government like Biden’s there is no recourse. The House will hold hearings, the people that they subpoena will ignore them, the DOJ will not do anything and the issue will die.
Only the Democrats can hold people in contempt and then have the AG actually prosecute. You will see Republicans go to jail for contempt and fore lying to Congress, but you will never see an Eric Holder or a Lois Lernher get prosecuted.
This is life in Doublestandardstan. The Dems get away with murder, literally in Teddy K’s case, and Republicans get 6 years for putting their feet up on Pelosi’s desk. When a white cop shoots a black guy that is violently resisting arrest, or when they shoot a guy THAT SHOT A COP, as in GA last month, the left riots and the media weeps, but when a black cop shoots an UNARMED woman there is a cursory “investigation”, the matter is dropped and the cop appears on 60 Minutes to get his kiss.
In Ferguson a black guy, a very large guy, robs a store, roughs up the Asian owner and then TRIES TO GRAB THE COPS GUN before he finally got shot, and there were riots, there was a panel on CNN holding their hands up and to this day there is still claims that he was murdered by a cop. This lie never goes away, but Ashleigh Babbitt is dead over two years now and the cop is probably receiving his pension in retirement.
“The House will hold hearings, the people that they subpoena will ignore them, the DOJ will not do anything and the issue will die.”
Well, republicans were doing that During Trumps reign. They set the example and Jim Jordan would be a hypocrite for complaining about ignored subpoenas. He ignored them himself.
“Ashleigh Babbitt is dead over two years now and the cop is probably receiving his pension in retirement.”
She’s dead because she forced her way into a secure area. She was warned multiple times and she got shot. She didn’t obey lawful orders and we all know what happens when you don’t obey lawful orders. You get shot.
She didn’t obey lawful orders and we all know what happens when you don’t obey lawful orders. You get shot.
Tyre Nichols got what he deserved.
Tyre Nichols wasn’t posing a threat to anyone. Babbitt was trying to breach the last barrier to the floor of the House, and this came after unlawfully entering the Capitol in the first place. Tyre Nichols didn’t do anything wrong. Babbitt did. Trump owes her family compensation for her wrongful death, which wouldn’t have happend but for the Big Lie.
There was absolutely no requirement for lethal force against an unarmed woman who represented no serious threat to anyone.
Michael Byrd is guilty of murder.
NUTCHACHACHA is typically incoherent and hysterical.
She herself is unarmed without her fair share of affirmative action, civil favor for females and welfare benefits, aka “free stuff” for dependents and parasites.
” So, criticism of the FBI’s work to censor citizens resulted in an official statement denouncing those citizens.”
Despite the totalitarian tactics of the FBI and its attack on its own citizens the government wishes to make it more prominent.
“Planned new FBI HQ is twice the size of the Pentagon”
“Riveted into the colossal new project are woke regulations to ensure that the FBI center will comply with diversity, equity, LGBTQ+, and climate change political goals.”
“would be twice the size of the Pentagon building. ”
This type of architectural plan bespeaks a government the left would impose on all of us, brutal totalitarianism. It sounds intended to mimic The Kremlin in Moscow.
“Section 402, “Incorporating Environmental Justice,” shows the politicization objective. The new FBI headquarters “shall address actions taken to advance environmental justice” under this section.
Section 403 takes it further, turning federal employees, in this case FBI special agents and other personnel, into political activists on and off the job. It would pair the FBI with “public, private, and non-profit sectors and labor unions and worker organizations” to promote environmental justice.
All this activity, under Section 501 of the executive order, would be overseen by a political commissar titled Federal Chief Sustainability Officer, appointed by the president.”
https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/planned-new-fbi-hq-is-twice-the-size-of-the-pentagon/
In response to GEB, I asked what was their end state?
I think you just answered my question.
Chilling.
A major theme of this administration is funnelling federal funds to NGOs and private companies pursuing politically favoured goals. And it’s not limited to domestic operations; how much Ukraine aid and border processing funding flows to NGOs? The DEI industry is also a major beneficiary. Much of this should be eliminated in the 12 appropriations bills the Republican-controlled House considers.
“ in the 12 appropriations bills the Republican-controlled House considers.”
This should reignite the question, of why the Omnibus Bill was passed and supported by McConnell. Add that to the Republican lack of support for Trump when first elected and the scattered attacks by them since.
One can hate or like Trump, but one should recognize that the Republican Party has too many who wish for the status quo and do not wish to rock the boat. Many conservatives agree. They are too afraid to rock the boat, speak loudly, protest, or object to characterizations of fellow conservatives that do not meet historical rigor.
“. . . but one should recognize that the Republican Party has too many who wish for the status quo and do not wish to rock the boat. Many conservatives agree. They are too afraid to rock the boat, speak loudly, protest, or object to characterizations of fellow conservatives that do not meet historical rigor.”
The status quo is nothing more than the same old, same old. Nothing happens of note. The say they are doing something when it amounts to nothing. And that can be applied to both sides of the isle.
I hear, “The devil you know.” That is how nothing gets done.
So like DeSantis paying a private airline that supports his campaign to ship migrants from TX to MA?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that’s how big government works, regardless of party affiliation.
DeSantis made people aware that their dollars were paying for illegal immigrants to be shipped to their locations even though many were not checked for disease, were intentionally released from jails, have a history of criminality, are part of the cartels engaging in human and drug trafficking.
All of that should stop but people like ATS don’t seem to care for American citizens.
What many agency leaders forget is that the U.S. Constitution is a “wartime governing charter” with wartime emergency clauses already built into the system (ie: 3rd Amendment, temporary suspension of Habeas Corpus, Bill of Attainder clause, Ex Post Facto clause, etc). Every FBI Director and employee swears to uphold this charter as a condition of retaining authority under their Oath of Office.
This wartime governing charter was created during wartime – between the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 when much of Washington DC (including the White House) was burnt to the ground. The president and Congress were forced to evacuate Washington DC during the War of 1812 (war that lasted for 3 years).
Since this wartime charter was created during this much more dangerous period, I’m guessing the Founding Fathers wouldn’t have wanted this authority abused over a Twitter post. Such an emergency as a Twitter post wouldn’t invoke the Constitution’s emergency clauses to violate the First Amendment.
The Constitution was created during wartime, as are many all over the world. New constitutions usually are written after some major socio-political upheaval.
I think you are not, but your argument could very easily sound like, that the protections embodied in the Constitution were with a wartime mentality and view, not for modern normal domestic civil government, you know a Living Constitution.
In a sense any society is always at war between social elites and privileged, and the common man who just wants to go about his business unmolested and uninterfered with by the government.
That all said, the Constitution is the Constitution, and it is the law of the land in America. The government has no business controlling the public social narrative, directly or by proxy.
“What many agency leaders forget is that the U.S. Constitution is a “wartime governing charter””
Revolutionary War ended 1783
Constitution written 1787
Responding to Meyer:
Any credible historian, views the “War of 1812″ as America’s 2nd Revolutionary War”.
England essentially viewed the Revolutionary War as only the first battle. They were still meddling in American affairs. America was under threat from England until 1815.
The goal of the U.S. Constitution was to prevent American federal officials from behaving like 18th Century Redcoats. Things like “Stop & Frisk” body searches, warrantless fishing expeditions etc.
To the best of my knowledge, America has never had a FBI Director that had fidelity to his constitutional Oath of Office.
[source: documentary “The War of 1812” by Ken Burns].
AZ, All I did was provide the appropriate dates so that the timeline was correct.
Revolutionary War ended 1783
Constitution written 1787
The U.S. Constitution was not a “wartime governing charter”
No professor, the FBI was NOT spying on “speech it deemed harmful to political or social discourse” — it was targeting speech it deemed harmful to Biden’s and the Democrats’ political agenda. There is a difference.
I hope you are right. But the FBI and DOJ will refuse to comment on an ‘ongoing investigation’, so how will Congress ever get to the bottom of this? The Hunter Biden Investigation has been ‘ongoing’ since 2018 and the very Wheels of Justice will rot off before this investigation is wrapped up. One might very logically conclude these agencies are sitting on these investigations instead of pursuing them.
I hope I am wrong, but probably not- the facts of the hearings and testimony will be expressed, and it will be ignored by the MSM and social media, where 80% of the public gets its news. The Democrats will denounce and distort it with their media carrying water for them. The Republicans will be attacked as MAGA extremists who only want to help Trump. The Democrats will fight with all their strength to make sure as little of this information as possible gets public attention. They do not care about prior restraint in the United States.
“ The First Amendment is not the exclusive measure of free speech. Corporate censorship of political commentaries or news stories are denials of free speech that harm our democratic system.
Second, this is a First Amendment violation. The Twitter files have substantiated long-standing concerns over “censorship by surrogate” or proxy. As with other amendments like the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches or seizures, the government cannot use private agents to do indirectly what it cannot do directly. Just as a police officer cannot direct a security guard to break into an apartment and conduct a search, the FBI cannot use Twitter to censor Americans.”
Corporate censorship is not a violation of the 1st amendment. That’s what Turley keeps avoiding. Twitter, Facebook, and other social media companies explicitly tell their users thru their terms of service agreement exactly what they will do to their content. Every single person signing up agrees to those terms. They have every right to deny whatever they deem against their policies. Congress cannot force any company to carry someone else’s speech because they don’t like the fact that these companies can deny certain points of view if they choose to. Because every person who signed up agreed to THEIR terms. Turley should know this problem quite well. People constantly sign away their rights when they sign up. Every one of those agreements ends with this simple statement that everyone stupidly agrees to. “ By clicking on “I agree” you hereby confirm that you agree and abide by the terms and conditions.” Or “By signing up you agree you have read and understand the terms and conditions of this contract”. The second one clicks on “I agree” it’s the moment they give up certain rights.
The second reason is NOT a violation. I can only be a violation if such requests or flagging certain posts or comments are only pointed out. Turley leaves out discussion of a more complex problem. The simple fact that in any court there would have to be evidence of coercion, intent, or force. Merely mentioning content that clearly violates a company’s policies is NOT illegal or unconstitutional. Specifically because it’s ultimately the decision of the company and Turley has acknowledged that twitter has indeed done that when he mentions twitter refusing many requests. As long as they get to determine and have the power to determine if anything violates their content the government is still free to flag or point out content.
From Professor Turley
The Twitter files have substantiated long-standing concerns over “censorship by surrogate” or proxy. As with other amendments like the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches or seizures, the government cannot use private agents to do indirectly what it cannot do directly.
From a person of limited ability to comprehend the written word
Corporate censorship is not a violation of the 1st amendment. That’s what Turley keeps avoiding.
Iowan2, Turley keeps insinuating without real evidence that the government was using twitter to do what they wanted. His problem is he can’t back up his claim without jumping into speculation unsubstantiated allegations. Jim Jordan who will be running this clown show for his own benefit is just rehashing what would amount to a pointless Benghazi 2.0 style hearings. Once he delves into the details he will have to acknowledge that Trump’s own actions did exactly what he is accusing the Biden administration of doing.
Corporate censorship is NOT a violation of the 1sr amendment, even when government points out violations of it’s own policies. It’s not illegal or unconstitutional.
Turley keeps insinuating without real evidence that the government was using twitter to do what they wanted.
Choosing to ignore the evidence does not mean the evidence in not clear.
Iowan2, the evidence doesn’t support what Turley claims. He couches a lot of his allegations with “reported”, “may”, “could” etc. He purposely leaves a lot to YOUR imagination so you can more comfortably indulge in your own conspiracy theories.
They committee hearings will just be another installment of Benghazi style showmanship. They won’t produce anything other than more fodder from campaigns to use.
“Corporate censorship is not a violation of the 1st amendment.”
That is incorrect as an unqualified edict.
If the corporate censorship is done at the behest, unavoidably coercive, of the government, then they can only do that under the same civil liability that the government has when censoring speech.
Furthermore, under American civil rights laws, if they do it discriminatorily they are liable to suit for civil rights violations.
Government requests are not “unavoidably coercive” as is clear from the fact that some are rejected.
Moreover, government requests that Twitter remove tweets that break Twitter’s own rules (as with the HB dick pics) or that break the law (as with tweets that violate the Ku Klux Klan Act) are wholly appropriate.
Moreover, government requests that Twitter remove tweets that break Twitter’s own rules
Under what constitutional enumerated power, is the FBI taking these actions?
They don’t need an enumerated power to speak.
If the government uses corporations to do their bidding, it’s the same thing. Don’t be daft. The founders didn’t want censorship through government telling companies how to censor people.
“. . . if such requests or flagging certain posts or comments are only pointed out . . .”
Leave it to the fascist Left to apologize for censorship by using the bogus premise that the government (and the FBI?!) are merely a “suggestion box.”
Well Sam, why would pointing out content be illegal? Pointing it out is not suggesting or requesting so why would it be illegal to point something out that may be a violation of company’s policy?
Well Sam, why would pointing out content be illegal?
Because the federal govt can only take on those powers enumerated in the Constitution.
Iowan2, those enumerated powers don’t prevent government from speaking as anonymous pointed out. Fun fact; even government has free speech rights.
Svelaz, the truth is that the law is unsettled on jawboning. There’s a circuit split. Turley doesn’t acknowledge this. See my recent post about this (and link to Lawfare).
I disagree with those people who call these various government miscreants and their non-governmental stooges, communists. This is not about communism although many are Marxists, communists and a variety of of ..isms. This is about an authoritarian state that sees only their view and has no shame whatsoever trying to preserve its power by any means necessary. This did not start with Biden. Many of the miscreants we see, whose names repeatedly appear in various scandals, investigations, the media (both in and out of government) and in and out of the cabinet and lessor posts cut their teeth in the Clinton Administration, then were given full control in the Obama administration, and here they are reappearing in the Biden administration. “The Usual Suspects”. Biden has no control and simply is a catspaw. He cannot even order the shoot down of a balloon without being overruled. How convenient that people claim Amendment #1 only applies to the Federal government when all the rest of the amendment applies to everyone .
The Bush administration bears a full share with the Patriot act ( it should be revoked fully) and the Homeland security department which has just grown and grown (metastasized might be a better term). Homeland security made this all much more possible and should also be broken up.
The DOJ,CIA, FBI, FISA court should be destroyed, the debris burned and the land sown with salt and then rebuilt into new organizations with clearly defined limits, overview and harsh penalties for moving outside their purview. They should not be power toys for presidents to play with. And Congress needs to do its job and should have as much access to oversight and control as the president. They should not just pass on personnel but also procedures and breadth of investigations. It might provoke inefficiency but better that than the efficient but overweening security state that we are witnessing now.
GEB,
I do not think all agents are communists, or the like. As we have seen some whistleblowers have come forward to report on questionable practices.
Is it a case of a few bad apples spoiling the barrel?
I do wonder what is the mentality of those near or at the top? Do they see themselves as some kind saviors of the dumb American people?
The tactics in arresting people whom we would call conservatives seems overwhelmingly heavy handed and does play right into the totalitarian, security state idea.
What is their end state look like?
“I disagree with those people who call these various government miscreants and their non-governmental stooges, communists. “
Many are, and many are not, but the tactics they use are Stalinist in nature. Many agitators behind the scenes are part of the New Left that shed their love for Stalin. This understanding does not mean we need an increased presence of government. There is a need to reign government in, making it smaller and ridding ourselves of those government bureaucracies that have become stronger than our elected leaders.
Everyone, regardless of their political leanings, should be concerned about this. I hope that the Committee will be able to get to the bottom of this and act in our best interests.
And no, I do not believe in the Easter Bunny
True that, but it seems the blinders have been permanently affixed to those on the left who refuse to see where we are headed with this if not stopped. We’ve seen this play before in the first half of the 20th century. No need to repeat it, but we will if not stopped soon.
Reform is preferable to criminally prosecuting federal agents (at least in the beginning stages), but if it indeed a 1st Amendment violation then it is also a federal crime under federal statutes like Title 18 US Code 245.
The issue here, is can the DOJ prosecute it’s own federal employees? History tells us that the answer is mostly “NO”. We have a class of lawless federal employees that are above the law and above the U.S. Constitution (which they swear an oath of office to follow).
Not to disparage the rank & file subordinates that follow orders and operate in a culture controlled by top agency management. The top managers are the most culpable since they control the culture and practices of their agencies.
What is the solution? Do we need a new agency that enforces laws (like 18 USC 245) when federal employees commit crimes? Do we need more federal laws?
Should this new agency be controlled by the Judicial Branch (courts) since it’s mission is “constitutional judicial review” over executive branch agencies (granted under “Marbury v. Madison)? Judicial Review is not an executive branch action, so why should an executive branch agency have this authority?
Ashcroft: There’s no reason to tinker with the separation of powers that means more to this country than whether some FBI agents are corrupt in carrying out their job. There is a difference between close and no supervision and therein lies the answer to this question. Chris Wray may be a very nice man and a good attorney but he is NO manager and is considered by his own agents as an “empty suit with a nice smile.” The FBI is an important agency and one that deserves the best leadership we can find. Many police departments, including the one in Memphis, are under agreements with the Department of Justice to protect civil rights and other constitutional guarantees. This at one time meant something and the FBI was viewed as playing a key role in the reorganization of corrupt and underperforming local police departments. Today, many of those same departments laugh at the FBI’s problems and disregard the FBI’s role in the local department’s behavior since the FBI itself is under scrutiny for corruption and deceit. No, the answer is not to disband, defund, or transfer the FBI but, simply, to reorganize it and build in organizational management structures that prevent the kind of weaknesses that now permeate the agency. Remember, Wray got the job because he was a former US Attorney, pal of Chris Christi of New Jersey where he defended Christi in the Fort Lee, NJ, “Bridge-gate” scandal and Christi recommended him to Trump when Trump fired Comey. It was a bad choice from the beginning and should never have been made. The director of the FBI should be a proven law enforcement expert with a solid resume of leadership roles in the field. It should not be a plum job for someone’s pal.
What is the solution? Do we need a new agency that enforces laws (like 18 USC 245) when federal employees commit crimes? Do we need more federal laws?
“Who watches the watchers”
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? is a Latin phrase found in the work of the Roman poet Juvenal from his Satires (Satire VI, lines 347-348). It is literally translated as “Who will guard the guards themselves?”,
At the FBI academy in Quantico, VA, special agent recruits are taught the legal constraints and authorities for enforcing domestic statutes. At some point, during their training for counterespionage work, the very same recruits are taught how to accomplish some of the very things they were taught that are forbidden by our domestic statutes. Sometimes there is a genuine nexus between foreign and domestic cases and therein is likely a cause for some of the problems discussed by Turley. Even when such a nexus does not exist, it is easy enough to hypothesize that it does and then appropriately pursue a hybrid investigation using both the forbidden and non-forbidden techniques. If and when John Durham ever finishes his job, we may learn just how complex and interwoven these troublesome cases are. Many are people-centric, meaning that they rise and fall on the integrity and personal advocacy of individual agents, or they are managed and encouraged by various superior officers in the agency. The bogus investigations generally collapse immediately when subjected to an official review. Sunlight is, indeed, the best disinfectant. It’s probably not a good idea for an agency that has as its motto, Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity, to train people how to do something and how not do the same something, when the only qualifier is where the something is to be done. Whether the something is done here in the U.S. or outside the constitutional purview of the U.S hardly inspires one to be faithful to a rule of law principle but, instead, trades such a rule of law principle for a false and perverse rule of venue. When integrity is conditioned on weak ethical underpinnings as these, you get precisely what we have gotten here. One good bit of news is that with Representatives Schiff, Swalwell, Nadler and their corrupt cronies in the House largely out of the way, we may have the ability to fix some of these problems with sound legislation that, among other things, reorganizes the leadership of the FBI. It might be a good idea to separate the two primary functions of the agency and allow career agents, when hired, to choose one or the other track only. Allowing and encouraging agents to switch tracks to broaden their experience, as we’ve seen, is not worth the risks for continuing down this very dangerous path that already has corrupted our current government and interfered with our constitutional rights.
At the FBI academy in Quantico, VA, special agent recruits are taught the legal constraints and authorities for enforcing domestic statutes. At some point, during their training for counterespionage work, the very same recruits are taught how to accomplish some of the very things they were taught that are forbidden by our domestic statutes.
Iowan2: Thank you for noticing this important fact. Think, for a second, and ask yourself what sort of person chooses to join the FBI. Let’s assume for the same of discussion the person is motivated in part by a sense of honesty, perhaps patriotism, and the idea of working with some of the most prestigious law enforcement people anywhere in the world. It used to be that a typical job opening announcement would draw tens of thousands of applicants for just a handful of jobs. When you have such a whittling process, you generally result in hiring the best of the best. That was then and this is now. It’s no longer the same. Retired FBI agents are foregoing their legacy handoffs to children and no longer recommending they follow mom and dad into the Bureau. There’s an important psychological element that should not be overlooked here. The Bureau was the first agency to employ full-time psychologists as special agents. One of their jobs was to “de-program” long-tern undercover agents who might be tempted to stay on the dark side after being wined and dined as mafia types. If the threat of someone in the Bureau changing sides because of an undercover skit, what are the chances for someone to change sides because of exposure to similar perils in the handling the differences I pointed out between domestic law enforcement and counterespionage law enforcement? I am not trying to explain the problems but to give some sense of how they might have begun, given the highly specialized methods of recruiting new agents.
JJC
I forgot to add, Biden/DoG, reverse engineering their abuse to power.
The invented document disputed at MaL, Biden/DoJ declaring parents attending schoolboard meetings, domestic terrorists. (attaching crimes to subjective definitions. Hate crimes, domestic terrorists, yet another abuse of govt stripping citizens of enumerated powers)
I want to put together a list of all the reverse engineering that has been exposed in the last 7 years.
Lie, cheat and steal. The National Socialist Democrat WOKE Party is the party of tyranny.
The Village Idiots are running the nation.
A police officer can’t ask a citizen to break into a garage to tell him what’s in the garage if he doesn’t have probable cause to get the warrant himself. And the FBI’s unapologetic efforts to get Twitter to do their censorship bidding for them is despicable. Censorship is absolutely essential for any totalitarian state. It is Communism 101. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
“ A police officer can’t ask a citizen to break into a garage to tell him what’s in the garage if he doesn’t have probable cause to get the warrant himself. ”
What if the garage is open? When everyone can see inside from the street? Can the police point out to the owner that there is illegal contraband that they can see? What if a city inspector notices a code violation and the owner to the property is renting the home? Do they notify the renter or the owner of the violation? The owner may have certain restrictions on his lease which allows him to evict based on what the government official pointed out? Would that be a 4th amendment violation? Twitter and facebook are similar to an open garage. People putting things in it or posting signage with an express agreement of the garage owner are exposed to those looking from the street including law enforcement. If those officers know what the agreement is that everyone signs why can’t they point it out to the owner of the garage? it’s the owner who gets to kick out the violator, not law enforcement.
Svelaz: You’ve succeeded in cutting the foot to fit the shoe. What you describe is akin somewhat to a “plain view” theory but here there was no plain view of the backchannel communications between the FBI – other government agencies, including the CIA – and the public. If anything was in plain view, it was only and solely such for the government and Twitter (and any other social media platforms that may have performed similar services). Courts have ruled that the influence by the government does not have to be direct but can be inferential or simply suggestive. Why? Because unlike the average Jane, the government has the prestige and power of being in charge. That places added responsibility to act appropriately. Even suggesting abridging someone’s free speech is, indeed, a constitutional violation when the government is involved. Using your perverse plain view analogy, I can look at Twitter’s public commentary all day long and never be privy to the violative language in the secret communications between the government and Twitter that would limit someone’s freedom of speech. These secret communication, contrary to your assertions, were nowhere in plain view and, as Turley observes, would never have come to your or my attention except for the fact that an eccentric billionaire bought the company and aired it out.
JJc,
But the plain view theory applies to twitter and Facebook since the majority of posts are open to the public. Posts that violate or seem to violate their policies area not hidden to law enforcement unless they are in a private chat mode.
“Even suggesting abridging someone’s free speech is, indeed, a constitutional violation when the government is involved.”
But they are not suggesting. What about mere mentioning of a possible violation? They can point out certain content to twitter and Facebook can they not? Can they not ask twitter, “hey, does this content violate your policies?” That, legally is not a suggestion and in court the act of pointing out certain content is not illegal to unconstitutional because it still leaves the decision of what to do about it to twitter of facebook. They CAN refuse to do anything if they want to.
The government can say, “we think this content violates your policies, what do you think?” Legally it’s not suggestive or requesting that they remove anything. Many critics of the FBI conflate warning, with requesting which makes their arguments easier instead of what the FBI actually says. The FBI is not prohibited from asking questions either. They can ask as many questions about the content as they want. Provided they are merely mentions or questioning if content or views are within a company’s policies. How would that be considered unconstitutional or illegal?
Svelaz, ALL of your stupid hypothetical is cause to get a search warrant.
Latest drop of Twitter Files from Matt Taibi is about something called Hamilton 68, which could provide some hard evidence of illegal wrong-doing for the Prof to study.
Nope. You would be better off actually answering the questions I posed because they pose legitimate points. Why would it be illegal for a government agency to point out to a private company that certain content seems to be in violation of their policies? Especially when the content is open for anyone to see.
Why would it be illegal for a government agency to point out to a private company that certain content seems to be in violation of their policies?
No constitutional enumerated power.
What enumerated power would that be?
The constitution doesn’t prevent government from speaking to private entities. So what power prevents them from mentioning to a private company that something is violating their policies?
It is not a question of enumerated powers.
When a government agency “points out” something they don’t like to a corporation’s activities, it cannot be anything other than coercive. The government has no charter reminding a private corporation on how to run its business, unless of course that activity involves a crime. And then of course it is still coercive.
It is much like being in a room with someone who is handling his gun, and having a discussion where he reminds you of your obligations. He doesn’t have to point it at you, or even reference it.
You are in no position to casually reject his suggestions, or even mention the obvious. That is what it is like when the government point things out to a company, or makes friendly reminders.
I look forward to what is discovered.
I also look forward to how MSM spins this as nothing to see . . . if they even cover it at all, or pull a HB Laptop From Hell memory hole maneuver.
We have Schiff being shut down by the very left leaning (at the time)Twitter for his egregious demands of censorship all while he was CHAIRMAN OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE!!!! Getting this liar off of the Committee was a great move by McCarthy. Schiff is the Joe McCarthy of our era except there is not one Democrat will ask if he has “no decency”.
“Schiff is the Joe McCarthy of our era except there is not one Democrat will ask if he has “no decency”.”
Schiff is not a Joe McCarthy, who was correct and wished to rid the government of communists when they existed in sensitive areas.
Schiff is the McCarthy of the left created by leftists and used to cow Americans who wish to rid the nation of Socialists that destroy our freedoms.
“We have Schiff being shut down by the very left leaning (at the time)Twitter…”
Yeah, they refused his request. Because they did exactly what they have always done. Trump’s own administration requested twitter to censor people too and they refused. Certain content that government officials point out to twitter and facebook which they can legally do is alway left to the companies to decide.
Incredible insights and explanations Professor Turley!
I’ve referred to you as a Refounder, and this piece, the concluding paragraph to be exact, brings clarity to murky business of government management of our God given rights.
To the Dim Maoists among us, people are just herd animals. Keep ’em fat, dumb and happy and you can lead them anywhere. Part of “dumb” is to tell them everything (and thus keep them occupied, i.e., abortion, pronouns, men in girls bathrooms … you get it) except what’s important. That keeps the dullards’ heads down (or beeacthing) and the independent thinkers believing they are a insignificant minority and hence best just “shut up and take it.” (see our “courageous” faculty at MIT for whom a dollar trumps integrity). The Congress will find that government power and social media power have combined like every good tyranical monopoly to suppress the independent-minded and marginalize them on some philosophical “Island of Misfit Toys.” We’re in the vast majority who look on in stunned disbelief are waking up ever so slowly, and maybe it’s good it’s slow elsewise we have mobs in the streets and a shoratge of piano wire in DC and SiliCON Valley.
Some time ago, I distilled the ancient Romans view of power. It bears repeating here:
The rules of successful application of power:
1. Power begets other power.
2. Power is always pragmatic.
3. Power avoids exhaustive hypotheses.
4. Power protects other power.
Sadly, it applies to nefarious and beneficent applications.
Those involved and who headed the censorship must be held accountable and should be fired from their positions and agencies and Twitter needs to make sure they cleaned house, I am sure Elon has already done that but doue check. Also, if possible those who have been financially harmed should sue and be compensated for the damages.
AMerican SOS !! Save Our Nation.
@steelyal in order to save the nation the nation needs to turn back to God.
“However, members of both parties should be able to agree on the need to investigate one of the most serious allegations”
You are kidding…right? Democrats are PURE fascists using banks, tech, government, healthcare, education, etc to DESTROY opponents and steal money.
Time to cut 50% of fed gov. spending, move 75% of Fed Gov out of DC, end all aid to cities and colleges. Time to STOP the Democrat Monopoly on POWER!