Glen Greenwald
Democrats and liberals as a
cultural attribute and as their political dogma no longer believe in free
speech. That is not hyperbole. Democrats in Congress have spent the last two
years abusing their majoritarian power in Washington by explicitly threatening
big tech CEOs that, unless they censor more political content, which Democrats
dislike or find offensive, then these companies will suffer legal and
retaliatory and regulatory punishment from the U.S. government. I've spent much
of the last two years reporting on the various ways they have done so.
But these comments I'm
about to show you from Democratic Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts uttered
during one of the many hearings, where big tech CEOs were summoned and
explicitly ordered to censor more, perfectly reveals the mindset of the
Democratic Party. Listen with your own ears to their own words. They're telling
you what they want:
Sen. Ed Markey
(D-MA): Problem. The issue is not
that the companies before us today are taking too many posts down. The issue is
that they're leaving too many dangerous posts up.
Now, so accustomed are
Democratic politicians to ordering around social media companies that way with
censorship orders that they now just publicly issued their threats as if it's
normal for the U.S. Government and Democratic Party lawmakers to dictate to
private actors how to censor. Because in left-liberal political culture that is
now normal.
On Thursday, Congressman
Adam Schiff, who gets a lot of justified credit for being the most dishonest
member of Congress, but not nearly enough credit for also being its most
authoritarian, invoked the framework of identity politics to justify his power
to interfere in Musk's decision making about what must be censored on Twitter.
The California Democrat issued this decree, quote: "On Elon Musk Twitter
slurs against black people have tripled. Slurs against women are up 33%. Slurs
against Jewish people up 61%. And slurs against gay men are up 58%. These
numbers are abysmal and unacceptable".
"Today, congressman
Mark Takano", his fellow California House Democrat, "and I are
demanding action". Oh, they're demanding action. Who cares? To begin with
these statistics, though, now, gospel among level journalists, are completely
fabricated. Where do they come from? Who measured that and how? I have no doubt
they came from this newly baptized priesthood called "online safety
experts", which basically consists of a few parasocial friends, which
left-liberal journalists made on Twitter. But much more importantly, who is
Adam Schiff to issue dictates to private social media companies regarding how
they must censor more aggressively? In what conceivable way is it appropriate
for members of Congress who wield significant power over tech companies to be
demanding which people and viewpoints must be silenced?
The Supreme Court has
repeatedly ruled that the First Amendment is violated not only when government
officials like Schiff enact laws explicitly censoring content they dislike, but
also when they use their power to threaten or coerce private actors such as
Twitter to censor for them, exactly as Democrats have been doing.
In 1963, the Supreme Court
ruled that Rhode Island legislators had violated the Constitution's free speech
clause when they began pressuring bookstores -- not legally requiring, just
pressuring bookstores -- to remove books those lawmakers had deemed
inappropriate. The Court in Bantam Books v. Sullivan rejected their excuse, the
same one Democrats like Adam Schiff offer now, namely, our programs, quote,
"do not regulate or suppress the content, but simply exhort booksellers to
comply as though it's voluntary".
But the Supreme Court recognized the obvious reality here when powerful politicians with the ability to regulate or harm your business suggest repeatedly that you censor, of course, that will be understood as an order to do so and thus violates the Constitution. As the Court explained:
People do not lightly
disregard public officials’ thinly veiled threats to institute criminal
proceedings against them if they do not come around... The operation of these
legislators was, in fact, a scheme of state censorship effectuated by
extra-legal sanctions. They acted as an agency not to advise, but to suppress.
The relentless threats over
the last two years of congressional Democrats and even sometimes from White
House officials to big tech platforms to either censor more or else face
punishment threats they are now issuing to Elon Musk, due to his refusal to
obey their censorship orders, far exceeds -- exceeds -- what the 1963 Court
found to constitute unconstitutional coercion to censor.
And the 1963 case, the
punishment was implicit but today's Democratic officials, they are very
explicit about their intentions. When I first reported on the Democrats'
escalating pressure campaign to force big tech to censor, Ben Wizner, the
director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, told me: "For
the same reasons that the Constitution prohibits the government from dictating
what information we can see and read, and also prohibits the government from
using its immense authority to coerce private actors into censoring on its
behalf.
Now, at some point, a
judicial ruling will be required on whether the Democrats' years-long threat to
censor more similarly violates the First Amendment, but what we now know for
sure, from documents obtained by The Intercept in late October and from Matt Taibbi's
reporting last week, is that it is not just the Democratic Party, but far worse
the U.S. Security State that is heavily involved in determining which
information is censored over the Internet and which information American
citizens are and are not allowed to hear.
Indeed, as Taibbi's
reporting revealed, Twitter's chief censor, Yoel Roth, reveled in the fact that
he met weekly -- weekly -- not only with the FBI but also with agents of
Homeland Security. A more alarming and I will say fascistic scheme is hard to
imagine. Democrats have largely succeeded in constructing an extra-legal
framework where they have harnessed the power to commandeer big tech's control
of our discourse, all while injecting the menacing presence of the U.S.
Security State and its trained disinformation agents to further control the
information flow to which the American public has access.
No comments:
Post a Comment