Recently, I wrote a column about Meta’s restoration of free speech protections after the company admitted to censoring users on platforms like Facebook. The company also revealed that it was pressured by the Biden Administration to conduct such censorship. Now, Google has taken the same step in restoring a number of YouTube accounts and pledging to show greater respect for free speech.
Google made the disclosure in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH):
“Reflecting the Company’s commitment to free expression, YouTube will provide an opportunity for all creators to rejoin the platform if the company terminated their channels for repeated violations of COVID-19 and elections integrity policies that are no longer in effect.”
This is another major victory for free speech. Google specifically acknowledged past political censorship and stated that it “values conservative voices on its platform.”
The company, for the first time, admitted that it yielded to comprehensive pressure from the Biden Administration to censor Americans. It acknowledged that the Biden censorship pressure was “unacceptable and wrong” and pledged to resist such pressure in the future.
Meta has substantially reduced censorship by replicating the approach of Elon Musk at X. These changes are a testament to Musk’s legacy in the restoration of free speech on social media. As I previously noted, we need companies like Facebook and Google. These are companies that are big enough to stand up to the European Union (EU) and its unrelenting campaign against free speech.
The censorship on Google and YouTube had a harmful impact beyond the loss of free speech. It suppressed opposing views on Covid policies from the efficacy of masks to the need to shutdown our schools.
The very figures claiming to battle “disinformation” were suppressing opposing views that have now been vindicated as credible. It was not only the lab theory. In my recent book, I discuss how signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration were fired or disciplined by their schools or associations for questioning COVID-19 policies.
Some experts questioned the efficacy of surgical masks, the scientific support for the six-foot rule and the necessity of shutting down schools. The government has now admitted that many of these objections were valid and that it did not have hard science to support some of the policies. While other allies in the West did not shut down their schools, we never had any substantive debate due to the efforts of this alliance of academic, media and government figures.
Not only did millions die from the pandemic, but the United States is still struggling with the educational and mental health consequences of shutting down all our public schools. That is the true cost of censorship when the government works with the media to stifle scientific debate and public disclosures.
The disclosure is also a blow to many Democratic members of Congress who long attacked witnesses, including myself, who testified against the coordinated censorship by corporate and government officials. Before the release of the Twitter files, members insisted that there was no evidence of such coordination. Some still deny such coordination despite multiple companies now confirming it.
The greatest challenge, however, still lies ahead for these companies. The EU remains the greatest threat to free speech facing Americans. After Musk purchased X with a pledge to restore free speech, figures like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demanded that the EU use its infamous Digital Services Act to force X to censor Americans.
The EU has threatened Musk with confiscatory fines that could surpass $1 billion, according to The New York Times.
The Trump administration has warned the EU about its efforts to censor Americans. Meta and Google can now join X in creating a formidable corporate alliance for free speech. For the first time, the free speech community might have a coalition of government and corporate allies that could stand up to the EU.
There will likely remain a degree of mistrust from the free speech community towards these companies after years of censorship and stonewalling. However, we also need to accept our allies where and when we can find them. Free speech is in a free fall in Europe and many on the left are encouraging similar censorship laws for the United States. We need these companies and should support them as they take meaningful actions in favor of free speech.
So bravo, Google, bravo.
Here is the full letter: Google Letter
While Europe may be the biggest enemy of free speech, the are also the biggest enemy of themselves. Instead of developing their own social media companies (and AI), they concede their technological impotence and simply tax foreign services. Europe, or the EU in particular, is not so much socialist economy but a caretaker economy that seeks comfort to the exclusion of dominance. I don’t know why, but possibly two of the deadliest wars in history on their turf affected both their gene pool and their will to excel.
Excuse me. Europe the biggest enemy… no, its the Peoples Republic of China.
Instead of investing in state controlled media platforms, which already they do, but why use tax dollars for more media, when its easier to create laws.
That gene pool comment is rather silly. Ever live in a European country? I did, two as a civilian. And they ain’t stupid.
“. . . company terminated their channels for repeated violations of COVID-19 and elections integrity policies that are no longer in effect.” (Google statement)
There must be a mandatory course for PR majors titled: “How to Obfuscate and Placate.”
Truth in advertising would have that statement read:
We used YouTube to push Leftist propaganda. You dissented. So we destroyed your creations. Your efforts and livelihood are meaningless to us. Did we have the political right to wipe you out? Sure. Was it the morally right thing to do? That’s not part of our equation.
“This is another major victory for free speech.” (JT)
Respectfully, I vehemently disagree.
Never ever trust a person or company who uses language to deceive and manipulate.
“ Never ever trust a person or company who uses language to deceive and manipulate.”
Based on tha logic. You should never trust Trump or his administration.
Or trust george/X
What price will those that foisted censorship on us pay? What price will those companies that willingly embraced such censorship pay?
None.
Since there is no price, why won’t the progressives just do the same thing again the next time they are in power?
We were made aware of this operation by the Biden regime in the Berenson v. Biden case. Here is my question to Professor Turley, what criminal penalty is attached to a blatant violation of Constitutional Law and Federal Statute for those directly and indirectly involved in this behavior from the United States Governmental employees??? Until there are consequences, this action will continue!!
Good one.
Understood. What constitutional or federal statute laws have they violated? Took away access to google/YT from a big mouth citizen?
Changes? Would be preferred, but doubtful.
I’m guessing, that they all have get out of jail free cards. And a whole bunch of lawyers.
bcfdt13, so you are ok with demanding the same thing of the Trump administration and his FCC’s threats against companies to silence late-night TV hosts? They did violate constitutional law too.
Nope.. Talking about, but not doing anything is far different then what Biden did
Honestly, as soon as the Democrats are back in power, I suspect these tech-tyrants will enthusiastically do it all, again.
Diogenes,
I respectfully disagree. Democrats bad, green policies were and to a degree remain bad for the tech sector. Green power is very unreliable and can never scale up to meet future power demands of AI, data centers. If it were not for PA, MD power gird would of gone down as they retired too many base power plants and relied heavily on solar and wind. The tech companies may have gone along with the Biden admin to a degree at least with censorship, but they all know if they do not want power outages for their industry, they are going in with reliable base energy, namely natural gas in the short term, and nuclear in the long term. Bill Gates is putting a lot of money into small modular reactors. I think it was telling when we saw Mark Zuckerberg change his script prior to the 2024 election, and the recent dinner some 30 tech leaders attended at the Trump WH. Their employees may be mostly liberal, but their CEOs, they are looking at the bottom line to make their decisions.
I hope you’re right, Upstate 🙂
We have a stock culture. Young people can’t focus. Young men have been neutered. Even good parents helicopter parent beyond belief. It’s not lack of faith either. It’s lack of moral education, which congress from parents.
My expectation is that this sudden turnabout will prove transient once the Dems secure power again. They now blame the Biden administration but we did not hear any complaints from them while it was taking place. The makeup of Meta and Google remains liberal progressive and would no doubt be supportive of another progressive administration desire to curtail free speech. One other thought, I think I recall that one of the defining characteristics of fascism is the government using private industry to subjugate and oppress its citizens. Who’s calling who fascist?
I agree with you. The Democrats have no principles other than, “Get power. Get money.”
The REPUBLICANS no principles other than, “Get power. Get money.” There you go, fixed it.
Did Nancy tell you to say that.
I would take a wait and see attitude about Google’s new road to free speech salvation. I would like to see them prove me wrong but I would believe it more if they implanted an ombudsman like group to monitor their adherence to the new way. I’m not suggesting the government. This could be independent and yet have the ability to make decisions when there are free speech concerns with individual users.
Musk invited in some independent journalists to view the files. Google should do the same sort of thing. I’m not so naive as to think that a statement by Google that “We’re all better now” is sufficient.
Wha, google being transparent? As for Musk, none of those so called journalists could be considered “independent” – they were biased one way or the other. My opinion.
If you made 20 million dollars a year, rain or shine and your business was worldwide, would you confine yourself to a single country? I would say for myself, I would however I believe these corporatist oligarchs see themselves beyond a confined geographical area. THEY are globalists, feeding off the global teat where their only concern is their bottom line. They give 2 sh!ts about our Constitution. Political favoritism is their game and it will change with the sequencing of elections.
WTF are you talking about? Pure unadulterated stupidity.
The truth, does that scare you? Sure looks like it
That’s not a truth, nor a fact. Its a hypothetical.
Hey dustoff, so much for your mental acuity. Hey madman, seems your partner is more a burden than a support.
Serge Brin’s family escaped Communist Russia but he is allowing Communism to come to the US.
And Larry Page, his partner and cofounder of Google, escaped authoritarian USA, and lives in the safety of New Zealand.
“ The EU remains the greatest threat to free speech facing Americans.”
Is it though?
Has the professor not been paying attention to what WE have been doing with free speech? The Trump administration has been detaining and attempting to deport legal foreign nationals, students, and attempting to deport them because they exercised their free speech rights. The irony couldn’t be more obvious, and hypocritical of Professor Turley’s Google and Meta argument.
Our government has openly threatened private companies with punishment if they don’t remove certain late-night TV hosts because the President or his supporters don’t like what they are saying, even if it’s offensive to them.
If we can seek to punish legal immigrants for expressing their political views and criticisms the EU can certainly do the same when it comes to Americans’ views and criticisms on American social media platforms allowed to operate within THEIR borders. Professor Turley doesn’t seem to see the hypocrisy and/or twisted logic of his argument.
MAGA was losing its mind and demanding censorship of anyone expressing their views, celebrating, and denigrating Charlie Kirk’s tragic death. Some were even demanding respect for him or face consequences. Professor Turley mildly criticized calls to punish those expressing glee and approval of Charlie Kirk’s assassination. The right went full cancel culture on the left in an irony-deficient binge of hatred and rage.
The campus protest movement at Columbia crossed the line into intimidating Jewish students. That behavior goes beyond “peaceable assembly” protected by 1A. They also illegally took over a campus building.
Our country gives out student visas for kids to come study in the US. There is no visa category for foreigners to come as “political agitators” hiding behind the student category. That abuse of the visa (as a vehicle for foreign political influence) won’t be tolerated. If you don’t think so, ask a few random Americans what they think.
pbinca,
One campus experienced a building takeover. One among hundreds of protests across the country.
Jewish students were alleging harassment and intimidation when they confronted protesters. They weren’t prevented from going to their classes. Those students chose to confront rather than find another way to go to class. Many Jewish students were provoking the confrontations given the nature of the protests. Naturally, the administration used that as an excuse to impose more restrictive rules.
Rumeyza Ozturk was no political agitator. She co-wrote an Op-ed critical of Israeli policy. I didn’t involve anything about the U.S. Government. It was a political speech and according to Turley we fiercely protect political speech even from foreign nationals living within our borders where the 1st Amendment rights still apply to everyone. We look very hypocritical when we punish those who exercise that cherished right only because they are foreign nationals on our soil. Professor Turley loudly complains about Americans being censored on social media in other countries for exercising free speech. You see the irony? Hypocrisy?
If we can punish foreign students for exercising free speech because they are ‘guests’ Why shouldn’t the EU be allowed to censor Americans’ free speech because social media platforms are also guests allowed to operate within their soil? Does that make sense? American social media companies don’t have a constitutional right to operate in foreign markets. They are subject to their rules and regulations are they not? If they are required to moderate or censor certain content to be allowed to operate within their borders we have just as much right to deny free speech rights to foreigners because they are allowed to visit here as long as they adhere to certain conditions like limited free speech rights and removal if their speech is offensive or critical of our government.
Would it be arrogant of the EU to punish Americans for speech they deem harmful, incisive, hate speech, etc because the social media platforms operating on their soil must abide by their rules? Americans using social media agree to terms and conditions that often limit their rights in exchange for being able to use their platforms. That means conforming to other countries’ restrictions, not just the US.
George Svelaz X likes to blame the victim and pretend the violence and intimidation toward Jews occurred only once, when the attacks were near continuous. Is his next comment going to be, there was only one Holocaust? Then again, he might say, only a few Jews were killed. Is GSX an antisemite?
Gosh, America, we sure are sorry that we engaged in totalitarian behavior, affected elections, silenced now proven true dissent and trashed freedom of speech. We promise to do better, now that we have been caught. But look at the big picture. We are too big to be held accountable. So, People, get over yourself and stop your stupid complaining.
Good one. How’s this: Dear America, Biden made us do it. Sincerely, google & youtube
Violating the 1st Amendment rights of millions of Americans. Yet no consequences for Google or others and more worrisome, no consequences for those in our own Government that attacked out 1st Amendment rights.
This is admission is weak sauce.
Listen anon, the google/youtube did not violate anyone’s 1st A rights. They are private platforms, not gov. entities. Do you get that? The 1st A applies to gov/citizen expression interaction. Just becasue they said Biden did it, doesnt mean they’re not lying and who else would they blame.
If it was 1a violation, ho wcome no one sued the biden regime?
Because of Section 230. It needs to be repealed.
Why please?
Because Section 230 (passed in 1996 before there were social media) indemnifies the operators of platforms like FB and Twitter from being sued for the harmful impacts of the stuff they publish, and allows them to censor content based on “decency” (as defined by the platform operator). That law was carte blanche for Zuck to do whatever he wanted without legal consequences, including yielding to pressure from the Biden folks.
If FB could be sued, that would change the company’s behavior in very significant ways. Some think it would force an end to algorithm-mediated communication, and force human-in-the-loop content moderation — the same as print and TV publishers face.
Well said.
Listen, ABC didn’t violate anyone’s rights when it took Kimmel off the air for spreading misinformation. It is a private platform, not a government entity.
Huh? Is Professor Turley experiencing some form of cognitive dissonance?
The Professor couldn’t be bothered to criticize the FCC’s blatant threat to broadcasters to revoke their licenses unless they did something about a late-night TV hosts benign comments, but chastises the Biden administration for doing something less intrusive like pressuring companies to ban certain accounts.
He seems to fail to understand, perhaps willfully, the distinctions between what Biden’s administration did and what Trump’s did. Pressuring private social media companies to ban certain accounts is not the same as openly threatening them with real consequences if they don’t do what the government wants. SCOTUS even agreed that the Biden administration did not coerce or threaten social media companies to remove accounts spreading misinformation or false claims. The big difference here is that Social media companies always had the option of telling the Biden administration “No” and the majority of the time they did. That is why Biden’s “censorship” actions were not illegal.
On the other hand, Trump’s administration OPENLY threatened media companies’ broadcast licenses if they didn’t ‘take care’ of the late-night TV hosts’ speech that the president didn’t like. I have not seen Professor Turley chastise the FCC’s clear threats against free speech. It’s not just Democrats condemning Trump’s FCC actions. Republicans and MAGA influencers like Candace Owens, Ben Shapiro, and Tucker Carlson are also calling out the FCC’s actions as anti-free speech and wrong, very wrong. But Professor Turley cannot?
Turley says it was coordinated censorship, Trump calling for the silencing of Kimmel on his social media platform, and the FCC’s Carr following through by threatening broadcasters in public to silence Kimmel and other late-night TV hosts not coordination? Come on.
“ The Trump administration has warned the EU about its efforts to censor Americans.”
The EU should be the least of Professor Turley’s worries. He should be more worried about the Trump administration’s own efforts to censor Americans first.
I find it amusing that it is very obvious Professor Turley is more afraid to criticize Trump than the EU and an administration no longer in power. Especially when the anti-free speech actions are blatantly obvious enough even Republicans and MAGA are pushing back.
OOPS.. More bad news for the Biden team.
Heels Up Harris Is Still Seething About Her Humiliating Loss, Claims 2024 Was the “Closest Election of the 21st Century
I would rather read Dustoff’s comment twice than X’s comment once. I ignore X because he reeks of a paid operative. Nobody could be that biased, partisan, prolificate AND dumb without being paid to do it.
Hullbobby
I think you hit the nail on the head!
8 Ball, I am a huge 8 ball fan and I shoot a game of pool almost every day.
Ladies, ladies ladies, now please lets stop it. Play nice. Anon is crushing you girls.
Hullbobby, so you’re admitting you’re just a shallow commenter with no intellectual curiosity about a different point of view.
HullBobby,
Well said. Just scroll past. I only look for credible people, such as yourself, and read their comments. Once in awhile I will have to read the slow and dumb ones comments for context when Lin or John Say take him down in epic fashion.
WOW worried are you.
Oh look, the mental genius blesses us with his perfect insight.
Yep. I’m that good. Love it
X, you cold do a better job of paying attention to counter-narrative things. Prof. Turley has criticized Brendan Carr and the President for their comments about pulling FCC licenses based on too much negative coverage of the current administration. He did it in his daily column, and again in his Colgate debate speech.
pbinca,
“ Turley has criticized Brendan Carr and the President for their comments about pulling FCC licenses based on too much negative coverage of the current administration. He did it in his daily column, and again in his Colgate debate speech.”
Professor Turley never mentions Carr’s blatant threat or Trump’s calls to revoke broadcasters’ licenses because of speech he doesn’t like. Not even in his columns. The only times he has mentioned anything close to a direct criticism are when he makes a generic opposition to government involvement. Never mentioning Trump or his administration directly. But he has no problem doing so with Biden or Democrats in general.
Professor Turley focuses on airing gripes by using only Democrats as examples. Never Trump or Republicans and that bias is obvious. Clearly, he is wary of offending the current administration with overly harsh criticism that is earned. Especially when Republicans and MAGA are calling out Trump’s excessive and overreaching demands to punish those who mock and criticize the President.
I would counter that Turley is being quite hypocritical when he criticizes the EU for censoring Americans’ speech while ignoring the Trump administration’s punishment of legal immigrants for exercising their free speech. You don’t find that odd or contradictory?
If the EU is anti-free speech because it calls on American social media companies that are allowed to operate within their borders it’s not anti-free speech when we punish foreign students because we allow them to be here not hypocritical?
“Pressuring private social media companies to ban certain accounts is not the same as openly threatening them . . .”
In 2020 and again in 2023, Biden’s DOJ filed two antitrust lawsuits against Google.
In a mixed economy, that’s how such government threats work.
“ In 2020 and again in 2023, Biden’s DOJ filed two antitrust lawsuits against Google.”
Biden’s DOJ? It was Trump who continued the antitrust lawsuit against Google. Republican state AG’s are spearheading the lawsuits.
Kimmel deliberately SPREAD MISINFORMATION. The NYT that morning ran a front page article stating that the killer had adopted “leftist ideology,” and was in a relationship with a transwoman.
Now, does that sound like a conservative MAGA member to anybody?
Kimmel said, “Over the weekend, blah blah blah.” But he somehow ignored Governor Cox’s discussion of the killer’s leftist ties on Meet the Press.
What the big boys are doing is simply pacifying Trump. I suggest that in order to use a media platform, Turley’s, google, youtube, that people register as their legal identities, and especially MAGAs be required to submit a certificate of sanity in the registration process. Turley blog would then drop to zero commenters.
Says Mr. Anonymous 60% of all daily comments, OCD central. Isn’t it funny that the mentally unstable never see themselves as the “sick” one?
So sez the nut who calls him MADMAN. Geeezzz……..
Game, set and match for anon.
Oh oh, sumone big mad…
Right… Jezzzzzzzzzzz
How about a class action suit against Google for violating our first amendment rights?
Excuse me, google is not the government. Obviously you have no idea what you’re saying. Thats why you’re a madman.
Does google receive grants or funding from federal tax dollars? Do they receive licensing from federal agencies? If so I would contend them responsible for adhering to the Constitution as an agent of the government.
Receive tax dollars? Why ask me? You wrote the comment, so do they?
BOOM! Game set and match for anon!
You a flickering blue flame beer fart
Me a supernova
Boom
Nuclear
Or in your case nucular…
President Epstein is eating cats and dogs.
Perhaps but he’s not doing a bad job of consuming communist pigs either!
Trump!
Here’s hoping that this change in policy is something more than a transient reaction to the current political climate. But unless the actors have changed, I doubt it and am fairly confident that there will be a relapse. Still, we should all enjoy the victory
“Fairly confident .. relapse”…. Based on what please?
Have the actors changed? Are the ones who caved into the prior Administrations’ pressure still in charge?
Actors? That’s a nonsensical response.
Remedial language 101
actors /ăk′tər/
Plural form of actor
noun
1. A person who behaves in the manner of a character …
2. One who takes part; a participant.
3. One, such as the manager of a business, who acts for another.
Never dreamed that I would ever say a good word about Google, but today I must agree with the professor.
Like the Biden’s debate performance, the only people surprised are the progressively stupid.