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.
JT: 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.”
That sums up modern day Democrats. They’ve lost their minds and souls. There is no reasoning with such people so we better act accordingly.
To put a domestic spin on an old Reagan quip: “The Democratic Party is outlawed, and B—bing begins in 15 minutes.” Or, do what Boris Yeltsin did when the ruling Communist Party abused power, he jumped on top of a tank, and he outlawed the Communist Party – many of the leaders of the abuse took their own lives.
In totalitarian nations no one is ever prosecuted for criticizing the government. That’s not illegal. Just “lies”, “misrepresentations”, “spreading false rumors”. “libeling public officials”, “causing panic”, ect. In other words, you can say anything you want about Hitler or Stalin—as long as it’s true. No lies about gulags or concentration camps—unless you want to end up in one.
What kind of government that jails citizens for question the elections? Even puts a special prosocuter, Jack Smith to jail their opponiet. What kind of government would you call a group of creaturers that call a protest an insurrection and jail those whom attended for over 2years? They use somebody that was question, Rusty Bower about electors being switched by an AG as a witness against those inqiring on election fraud. What kind of government thinks that people are their private property, to buy, sell or kill? What kind of government?
Does anyone believe the 3 letters, contractors, and the demo tyrannocrats will follow the injunction ?
It’s a JOKE. The exception for terrorism won’t work, those are called Dads and Moms with children in public school.
Patreon and paypal and banks will still shut down any demoncrat political opposition.
They will all be fired or retaliated against in government employ.
None of it will stop. They have another election to steal. They will double down and do their worst, ever more, with endless legalized fraud excuses.
JT provided partial sentence quotes of the Judge in a couple instances — here are the full quoted sentences that provide important caveats and context.
“If the allegations made by the Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.”
“Although the censorship alleged in this case almost exclusively targeted conservative speech, the issues raised herein go beyond party lines.”
And now from Aaron Kheriaty, a former Professor of Psychiatry at the University of California at Irvine School of Medicine, where he was the director of Medical Ethics and presently one of the key plaintiffs in the action that has brought the temporary injunction against the government’s censorship efforts.
https://brownstone.org/articles/we-landed-a-major-blow-against-the-censorship-leviathan/?utm_medium=onesignal&utm_source=push
Professor Jonathan Turley is the man in the arena. We should all acknowledge and give thanks for his lived example of “Citizenship in a Republic” as articulated in a speech delivered by Theodore Roosevelt at the Sorbonne in Paris on April 23, 1910. The speech is also known as The Man in the Arena”.
Thank you Professor Turley for leading by example.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
– Theodore Roosevelt
“if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly” This phrase from Roosevelt’s speech reminds us that Roosevelt was one of the most vocal supporters of our entry into WWI, the greatest mistake in our country’s history. Perhaps wisdom and prudence are more important in politics than daring.
I read an article in The New York Times this morning defending the collusion of the government with social media to censor the American citizenry. Never in the many worded article did they mention that the FBI paid Twitter 3,500,000 dollars to have their bidding done. As usual they think that by ignoring the facts that they will just go away. Those of us who love freedom will make sure that the facts will never be put on a back shelf no matter how much they want to hide them from us. We are beginning to and we will continue to overcome.
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 question assumes the Democrats in Congress are looking for evidence that our government is violating the rights of the people. That shipped sailed without them long ago. The Democratic party of today have reimagined their role based on their realization that there are no consequences to the government’s abuse of power. And as we are seeing around this country today, bad behavior without consequences leads to more bad behavior. They even flaunt their unconstitutional actions and dare anyone to do something about it. With the Executive branch agencies all in and Congressional authority limited, we are left with the Courts that can entangle challenges for years before being righted. In the meantime, real harm is being done to the American people and what’s worse is, they are unwittingly being numbed to this sort of abuse of power. Democrats will never drop their unified opposition because they are the evidence, hiding in plain sight.
Well said, Olly.
Estovir, this blog gives the impression we are dying a slow death, one cut at a time. But in reality, we are hemorrhaging our freedoms by the gallon.
Judge Doughty’s temporary injunction fails to prohibit Admin. officials from knowingly pushing out false narratives. Looked at from a person like Mike Morell who has extensive PsyOps training, that leaves the barn door open to waging public frauds as strong technique for electorate-opinio-shaping. You can bet that the Biden Solicitor General will try to construe “government censorship” narrow enough to ignore the pumping out knowingly false narratives (for political gain).
With this TRO, these govt. operatives with advanced PsyOps/media training only have 2 restrictions: don’t defame, and don’t attempt to censor fact-checkers trying to expose your deceit. Instead, rely on media surrogates to push hard on the fabricated counter-narrative, and oppo-brand the fact-checkers as conspiracy-theory-zealots. This worked in spades to keep the Hunter laptop scandal from erupting before the election.
Granted, this is a very significant Court Order, and the fact-base will be hard to refute during merits. It takes away an important tool from the govt. infowarrior (private jaw-boning of social media companies). However, these are very crafty people skilled at circumventing obstacles.
What I hope emerges is a broader interpretation of the 1st Amendment based on its enduring purpose — to preclude government from taking up mind-control over the public it serves. Censorship is merely one tool among the PsyOps toolbox, not even the most powerful. Therefore, let’s make this about whether govt. has the power under the 1st Amendment to deliberately dupe the public. Do you think the Supreme Court would favor that theory?
75% of the ‘guns’ in this country are in the homes and storage facilities of americans who do NOT agree with the censorship coming out of the Federal government — a bit surprised the armed rebellion hasn’t already begun—-
Like that’s going to solve a daunting complex problem: what is disinformation?….who decides what is fact vs. lie?….on what timeframe?….quickly enough for the truth to make a difference?
You can fantasize all you want about what you can accomplish with guns. I’ll take a competition of ideas over that, because it has a much better track record of success.
Well, take Mao’s Culture Revolution.
How well would of that succeeded in the persecution of people who had other ideas than what the great Mao (sarc) had in mind if they were armed?
Many of regulars here on the good professor’s blog have commented on the parallels to Germany in the 20 and 30s or to Mao’s Culture Revolution.
Seems to me, those comparisons are apt.
Why else are the leftists so rabid about gun control?
I do agree that a competition of ideas would be better than in coming but the woke leftists have shown their capacity for violence with the 2020 Fiery But Mostly Peaceful Summer of Love, their attempted assassination of a SC Justice, their death threats toward just about anyone to the right of Mao.
Richard Lowe, rebellion has begun in the Supreme Court and by the judge in this case. Your calling for armed rebellion only feeds the claim by Democrats that those on the right are extremist. In saying what you say you are not a server of the cause. The Democrats are only looking for a reason by pointing out your extremism to convince people that they should remain in power. Maybe a time will come when armed conflict will be necessary but while the right is winning in the courts please don’t help.
TiT,
I do not agree with Richard’s over all premise of a armed rebellion, I know what that looks like up close and personal. We do not want to go there.
However, reading the leftists rhetoric whom have no problem with violence, everyone should be at the ready to defend themselves.
Also, Democrats call anyone to the right of Mao, radical right-wing extremists. People like Tulsi Gabbard, Bill Maher, Elon Musk, Glenn Greenwald, Bari Weiss. It is their way of dehumanizing people to make it that much easier to commit violence against them.
See the parallels to 1920-30 Germany or Mao’s Cultural Revolution?
Richard Lowe,
While gun sales over all have dropped, we are still seeing record numbers of firearm purchases from first time buyers, namely women and minorities.
Fact is, they see the lawlessness of Democrat policies and feel for the need to arm themselves for self defense.
To them I say, good on you! Get proper training and practice and practice often.
Note to Supreme Court:
Judicial Review
_____________
As soon as you wake up American under the American thesis and the clear and evident meaning and intent of the American Constitution and Bill of Rights, by all means start doing your job.
Dear Prof Turley,
One can only hope this injunction against – the government – extends to all ‘censorship by surrogate’ efforts by the Biden Adm. or any other. Government officials have no business whatsoever involved in any media decisions – what to print/what not to print – beyond issuing public official statements.
There must be a fine line between media coercion by gov. officials and the abject willingness of large media organizations to accept official pronouncements as ‘fact.’ The Biden/Blinken official public statements concerning the conflict in Ukraine, for example, is *an Unprovoked war of aggression by madman Putin (Russia) bent on Imperial conquest of Ukraine, western Europe, Freedom, Democracy and the American Way*. To put it mildly.
One would be hard pressed to find any western media reports to the contrary.
*otoh, if people really believe Russia is shelling their own positions, blowing up Russian pipelines and have rigged the ZZNP nuclear power plant for destruction (with IAEA representatives on site) and nuclear fallout .. . I’ve got some ocean front property in Appalachia for sale.
Professor Turley should write another article about misinformation and disinformation:
Hollywood writers, for at least 20 years, have a reliable pattern of “excluding” the word “Constitution” from any movie or TV series showing an actor taking the Oath of Office.
From police shows to military shows to depicting national security agencies – Hollywood writers fundamentally misrepresent what our constitutionally oath sworn officials pledge loyalty to when hired.
Many young viewers then claim to have then joined these agencies, inspired by the Hollywood movies and TV shows. If there is no government coercion, it’s perfectly legal.
This practice just seems bad for America. It shows we have learned absolutely nothing from the Bush torture program, which destroyed America’s reputation in the world. Instead of America owning up to our war crimes and crimes against humanity, we instead justify those evils with business-as-usual.
Very few of these shows, depict a CIA official like John Kiriakou, who refused to torture and went to prison for being to loyal to his oath of office. Instead they totally represent the Oath of Office.
Very few mention that Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department would have indicted and convicted the George W. Bush torture attorneys. It’s simply misinformation, but government officials will never censor these type of misrepresentation.
In a society of people expecting to remain free, who is to decide when information offered them is incorrect or misleading? If a society is to remain free in spirit and not simply in word alone, logic would suggest that the decision is left to each person’s judgment after having acquainted themselves with all the facts presented and argued by all of those who share expertise. Some may get the facts wrong in coming to their decision, but they do so on their very own and not because they neither had nor were they given any opportunity in the matter.
In a society of people expecting to remain free mostly, if not entirely, by expecting and relying upon the best intentions of their government, their future is far less certain. They are too easily given to being duped and victimized by an authority whose motives are too often taken too much for granted with unelected bureaucrats who take it upon themselves to police the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
But the worst that is to be recognized are any who think they and their government should shepherd anyone they believe incapable of deciding when information offered them is incorrect or misleading. With a growing body of people like that the “Orwellian Ministry of Truth” takes on a vigor that eventually dooms everyone.
The Brownstone Institute for Social and Economic Research concludes it well:
“At last this court action may finally provoke a debate about the administrative state that embarked on the great silencing. Its machinery seized control of the country in March 2020 in a great turning point in American history. It’s taken more than three years to finally observe a major pushback. The struggle to maintain freedom will always be with us as a great task of every generation.”
https://brownstone.org/articles/the-unraveling-of-the-censorship-hegemon/
When you talk about each citizen deciding for themself what is true vs. false, you’re appealing to the Court of Public Opinion as final arbiter of fact.
But we have a more dependable system for resolving disputes over facts with Courts, Opposing Parties, Judges and Juries. This is better at discovering the truth than the court of public opinion because:
• it’s an adversarial process between equals mediated by a strong referee
• the power of subpoena gets to the truth where investigative journalism cannot reach
• strict rules of evidence have been evolved over centuries to weed out conjecture, hearsay, misperceptions and lies
• a jury of 12 is decider-of-fact
• verdicts are official, carry weight and levy consequences
• though snail’s pace, the Judge sets deadlines for resolving the conflict which must be met; conflict ends.
When I think about weighty conflicts over what is true, I think of the Nick Sandmann defamation lawsuit. I think of
the Jussie Smollett trial. I think of Fox News Channel being nailed for lying about Dominion Voting Systems, Alex Jones stripped of his ill-gotten wealth by Sandy Hook survivor families, and Trump facing the music over a department store hookup that became coercive.
We have ways to get at the truth. It’s much more reliable than individual opinion, or public opinion.
It’s called jury-as-decider-of-fact.
You have suggested elsewhere that it is a “competition of ideas” that has a “much better track record of success” for determining incorrect or misleading information. I quite agree, and would add only that it is the very competition of ideas that censorship inhibits.
LOL you’re a joke.
“[Y]ou’re appealing to the Court of Public Opinion as final arbiter of fact.”
So the “choices” are: Accept government as the arbiter of truth. Or accept public opinion as the arbiter of truth.
What about a pox on both of your houses?
Reality is the final arbiter of truth.
I’ve been writing about these kinds of issues for a while, here is a post from April.
We’ve seen this time after time since 2008 that if you’re against the political left’s anti status quo, anti-American, anti-Constitution changes or anything the political left proposes then you’re tarred in the court of public opinion as being evil. Period. End of discussion. Yes it really is just that simple in the minds of these cultish “progressive” (that’s an oxymoron, they’re regressive) that has infected our society like a cancer, they’ve resorted to pure persecution. Those of us that oppose the kind of complete social/cultural destruction that’s being rammed down our throats by the “progressive” left are faced with choices to reverse the trend but none of the common sense, critical thinking or logical choices seem to be working because the left has categorically rejected all those core concepts and pushed their absurd delusions as fact. It’s as if they have been collectively brainwashed and now we have epidemic levels of absurdities infecting our society. A reasonably predictable societal/cultural collapse is drawing near and a black hole of chaos is sucking everyone in, it’s getting harder and harder to be able to reasonably predict a positive outcome on the other end of this absurd cultural upheaval.
Steve,
Well said.
For an example, just look at the leftists protesting against the Moms For Liberty meeting in Philadelphia recently. Moms For Liberty stand for parents rights for their children in schools.
Leftist in their cult like behavior, accused Moms For Liberty as being racist, bigoted, and white supremacist. Of course if you do not buy into the cult, then you are a racist, bigoted, and white supremacist, even if you are not white!
The Democratic National Committee also released this statement.
“Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, and Vivek Ramaswamy are celebrating the Fourth of July weekend with one of the nation’s most notorious anti-freedom, history-erasing, book-banning groups[Moms For Liberty],”
Further,
“While President Biden and Vice President Harris are running to safeguard Americans’ rights and freedoms, MAGA Republicans are more concerned with catering to right-wing extremists than addressing the real issues that working families face.”
Of course they use the cult like language of “catering to right-wing extremists.”
Real issues that working American families face is having wokeism being indoctrinated to their children.
They’re too damned ignorant/stupid/deluded to actually argue on an intellectual level so they launch ad hominems at their opposition trying to shut them down.
The left’s totalitarian war against the foundations of the United States of America must be stopped! Personally I think that ethical lawyers and judges using established law are our last effective non-violent barrier against the totalitarian horde that’s actively trying to undermine every foundational concept that the United States is built upon. We need to employ the law in a very rapid fashion to effectively overturn the left’s efforts to create their delusional social “utopia”.
Steve,
Again, well said.
However, when ethical lawyers and judges using established law do not submit to totalitarian horde, I would not put it past the totalitarian horde to resort to violence to get their way, stay in power.
After all, their motto is, “By any means necessary.”
The upside to this is reading through the comments, our leftist friends grossly display their anti-Constitution, pro-totalitarian feelings.
Easterly’s declaration of “our cognitive infrastructure” is emblematic of the stupidity on display which those immersed in it cannot or will not see. It is a phrase straight out of any cheap novel of dystopia. A local boy to where I now live, Steve Cochran, was a “B” movie villain of the 1940s-1950s. He once said that to be a convincing movie bad-guy he would simply act as though every terrible thing he did was perfectly sensible and normal.
Easterly, Myorkas, et al, they’ve mastered this lesson.
I dislike the amorphous “anonymous” label. How did it come to applied to me? What makes it automatic?
Any thinking person, republican or democrat, knows full well that this had the ability to change the outcome of an election. Just this and the laptop being hidden by the FBI are more than enough to change the results.
No, not all opinions are valid, yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire is not free speech. There are not legitimate sides in every situation, a proven lie is not equal to facts and truth.
Fish, excluding the lam and banal “screaming fire…” BS it doesn’t matter which opinion is right and which opinion is wrong, that is the essence of the 1st A. If you actually read the free speech case law you would know that what you are spouting is garbage.
Sure you can, not announcing the fire and saving lives is unconscionable.
Pretty lame to equate yelling “fire” in a crowded theater with legitimate political discourse on Covid and vaccines. Can’t you try just a little bit harder?
oldmanfromkansas,
It is not that they are not trying harder.
It is that they are getting that desperate they are resorting to absurdities.
3 Cheers for the Ministry of Truth! Woo Hoo !!
We Gonna Fight For the Right of the Government to Censor Us! Woot Woot Yeah!