The First Amendment Blues
The Censorship Industrial Complex (aka "The Blob") has become a very real threat to freedom of speech. Even more troubling .... half the country is buying in.
Something’s been bothering me lately.
You may be aware of the controversy lately among the chattering class of the efficacy of the First Amendment. No other precept in American public life is more anatomized among the body politic. The right to speak freely is manifested every single day in almost everything we do. It is uniquely American; no other republic in history has codified freedom of expression by its citizenry. Not ancient Greece. Not the epoch of the Roman Empire.
Free speech is under attack around the Western world. Look at what’s going on right now in Europe — in the U.K. … in France … and in Germany. Even our Canadian neighbors are buckling down on free speech — “C63: Online Harms Act.” And not to mention Brazil.
All have something in common — none have the First Amendment.
This all-important addendum to the Constitution allows Americans to share freely their thoughts and beliefs. Citizens can criticize the government and demand redress. Scrutiny by a free press is intended to check abuses of power and corruption. Open debate allows the expression of diverse perspectives.
Above all, the power to speak openly is essential in protecting all other civil rights, such as the right to privacy and due process.
The First Amendment isn’t just an unalienable right. It is THE right.
Unfortunately, judging by recent trends in public opinion, the judiciary and even the media, support for the First Amendment appears to be depreciating. For whatever their reason, significant segments of the population are gazing south rather than toward the North Star. The value of our voices seems to be waning.
Public antipathy toward the First Amendment has plunged that knotty craw into my chest.
The First Amendment Goes Too Far??
A recent poll by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (theFire.org) revealed that 53 percent of Americans believe that the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it protects. That is startling, so it bears repeating.
More than half of the republic has a problem with free speech.
Somehow, this unalienable right born of our Founding Fathers is bleeding out of our collective DNA. Benjamin Franklin once warned that citizens may sacrifice their civil rights in exchange for “security.” It was a sacrifice the colonists were unwilling to make.
I’m not alone in my wariness of this trend.
“Evidently, one out of every two Americans wishes they had fewer civil liberties. Many of them reject the right to assemble, to have a free press, and to petition the government. This is a dictator’s fantasy.” — FIRE Chief Research Advisor Sean Stevens.
Say What?
I spit my cornflakes when I read this quote from Tim Walz, the governor of Minnesota and Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate:
That can’t be right. Is the potential VEEP consciously equivocating the Constitution? Perhaps he spoke without thinking it through? Candidates often speak recklessly.
Then I looked further. It turns out Gov. Walz was talking about publishing a wrong election date. Fair enough. Mistakes happen. Mom taught me that. Then again, politicians aren’t known for their probity, either.
But “misinformation” and “hate speech” as construed by Walz here and by the government imperium have taken on a more perverse connotation. They are suggesting sophistry and subterfuge by anyone who questions the establishment. It implies the unsuspecting and unwashed masses are being led astray by bad actors, conspiracy theorists, and enemies within. When Walz says “not tolerated … especially around our democracy” what he really means is “not tolerated … under our authority.”
Misinformation … disinformation … various forms of “speech” must be regulated to protect public trust and security. “It’s for your own good,” they say. “Save Democracy!” The same cryptic message emanates from politicians of all stripes, public institutions, and even the establishment media itself.
A guest essay by Columbia law professor Tim Wu in the New York Times decried the First Amendment as posing an “existential” threat to personal security and that “the courts need to be more stringent” about mediating content regulation on social media platforms.
The headline alone sends heads spinning …
Think about that. The New York Times the “Newspaper of Record” … the apex of journalistic integrity … the most prestigious media institution in Western Civilization … shitting on the First Amendment.
There is a growing movement with media apologetics in favor of government censorship. As a former journalist and a disciple of Western Enlightenment values and constitutional vitality, it is mind-boggling,
“The Hoax of the Century”
What exactly does “free speech” mean in 2024?
It’s complicated. However, the context extends far beyond the “clear and present danger'‘ standard opined by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (Schenk v United States, 1917).
Rather, free speech encompasses a broad range of traditional issues such as defamation (libel and slander laws), obscenity cases and false advertising. Since the growth of technology and the development of Internet-based speech platforms, 21st-century adjudication of the First Amendment mostly focuses on net neutrality, what constitutes hate speech, “de-platforming,” and online censorship.
Currently, censorship is the hottest button on the FA gameboard. The focal point is government regulation of speech — specifically online speech — rather than the “Congress shall make no law” prelude in the Bill of Rights. The controversy swirls around how much leeway the government should be given to reach, but not overreach, in monitoring and censorship of online platforms.
Overreach is eviscerating the spirit of the First Amendment.
Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg publicly admitted it the other day. The Twitter Files opened Pandora’s Box by revealing the heavy government interference in the company’s operation before Elon Musk’s takeover in 2022. In an extensive and damning essay, Tablet’s Jacob Siegel called the feds’ meddling in free speech “The Hoax of the Century,” citing the Russiagate debacle (2016-18), the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story (2020), and the crackdown on COVID mandate dissenters.
Misinformation = Censorship
At the eye of the storm are the definitions and interpretations of “misinformation” and “disinformation.”
Therein lies a gray area … living in the fog … and reflected on an opaque mirror. What constitutes “misinformation?” Who are the arbiters of what it means and what is permissible? How effectively do social media platforms regulate users in their Terms of Agreement? Are the platforms filtering truth from lies? Should online platforms be afforded protection in the same manner (Section 230) as public utilities (telecommunications companies, phone service providers, etc.)?
Most importantly, should the government be monitoring and acting upon speech in domestic spaces?
Perhaps you already knew this, but the feds have been highly active … in fact, hyperactive … in overdrive … on an industrial scale … since 2016.
The Censorship Industrial Complex
a.k.a. “The Blob”
In his last days in office, President Barack Obama decided to set the country on a new course. On Dec. 23, 2016, he signed into law the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act (CFPDA), which used the language of defending the homeland to launch an open-ended, offensive information war.
Disinformation, a half-forgotten relic of the Cold War, was newly spoken of as an urgent, existential threat. This decree provided the impetus for the birth of what author Walter Kirn calls “Digital McCarthyism.”
The Blob is real
First, it is important to establish that The Blob exists. It is not a conspiracy theory, nor a Machiavellian covert op hidden in shrouds of secrecy.
The Blob operates within a sprawling, interconnected, federally-funded apparatus under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Formed in 2002 as part of the Homeland Security Act, DHS began as a coalescence of the federal surveillance community, the entire mass of alphabet agencies — the CIA, NSA, FBI — under one umbrella.1 Today, DHS oversees 17 departments with an estimated budget of $194 billion for 2024.
Originally established to track foreign terrorist threats, over time DHS turned its attention and all of its high-tech tools toward the home soil. Since 2016, they have tried — literally and figuratively — to control political and cultural discourse about power, public health, climate, and other pressing topics.
And that’s a problem, a big problem … for the First Amendment, and anyone who values civil rights.
How is it a threat to free speech? Who is involved? Are they functioning at subterranean levels beyond public scrutiny?
Who is in The Blob?
In the broadest sense, it may be called the “Deep State.” But unlike the Deep State, The Blob is not a group of faceless bureaucrats within the federal government flipping switches and turning dials. The players are major establishment heavyweights, many of whom are national figures and still accepted by The Beltway and media, who wield extraordinary power over social media and what information is disseminated online.
These are not spies or up-collared spooks. These are real people with real names and titles. They are public figures in real agencies … in fact, most have .gov addresses. They include academians (University of Washington, Stanford and Yale), and ex-feds such as John Podesta, John Brennan, and James Clapper. Many others are former members of the surveillance community.
The Blob is an amorphous community that floats freely between Academia, a dizzying array of alphabet soup “advisory committees” and “task forces” (for example, CISA), Non-Governmental Agencies (NGOs), and the large chunks of the United States “surveillance state.” Journalist-author Michael Shellenberger euphemistically calls The Blob the “Censorship Industrial Complex.” Someone who was a senior official at CISA ten minutes ago might now be Director of Information Integrity at Microsoft, or tomorrow a Senior Fellow at the Aspen Institute.
The Blob is an amorphous community floats freely between Academia, an alphabet soup of agencies (CISA, etc.), Non-Governmental Agencies (NGOs), “advisory panels” and large chunks of the United States “surveillance state.” Journalist-author Michael Schellenberger euphemistically calls The Blob the “Censorship Industrial Complex.”
Groups within The Blob have rather anodyne names — the Alliance for Securing Democracy, Hamilton 68, and the Stanford Virality Project. Who wouldn’t be on the Election Integrity Partnership?
It’s easy to get lost in acronyms, or go down the rabbit hole of “conspiracy theory.” Sounds like it. But make no mistake, The Blob is real, highly motivated, and aggressively nosing into everyone’s business by carefully monitoring, curating and when deemed necessary, censoring online content.
“… truth is great and will prevail if left to herself”
Imagine these scenarios...
Say you posted on Facebook in 2021 that you received the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine and became ill shortly afterward. There’s nothing about it on cable news, so you were wondering about vaccine injury and wanted to know if any of your 1,000 friends may have suffered like you. Chances are, somebody at the Stanford Virality Project noticed, contacted Facebook, and your friends never saw your post.
Maybe you had thoughts on irregular election procedures in your state in a group thread on Twitter (now “X”). Likely the thread was noticed by one of 80 FBI “investigators” in San Francisco, who contacted Twitter and the thread was labeled “misinformation” and algorithmically “de-amplified.” Other known posters on that thread were “shadow banned.” Metaphorically, the air was taken out of that balloon.
Or you may have wanted to know more about the Steele Dossier during the first Trump impeachment (2017-18). Back then, if you Googled “Steele Dossier” the first 100 search results would outline an elaborate Russian disinformation plot to subvert the 2016 Presidential election. It turned out to be untrue.
Maybe you don’t use social media and this stuff doesn’t matter to you. Or you’re hardly a jihadist and the government won’t ever care what you say.
Perhaps not.
I am by no means a “free speech absolutist.” I don’t believe such an animal exists, primarily because there are limits (incitement to violence, privacy issues, etc.) to free speech. And there certainly can be a price to pay for speaking your mind.
This is not a “Left vs. Right” issue. It is an American issue. The digital age has presented challenges to the First Amendment unlike any in our history — even war. Still, the vitality of free expression outweighs all other negatives, probably by several orders of magnitude. In this case, “more is better.” I’ve always cherished that right.
"… truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate." — Thomas Jefferson
‘You want to “Save Democracy?” Start by saving the First Amendment.
###
Useful Links …
Independent journalist Matt Taibbi talks about the Twitter Files
What is “Section 230” and why should I care about it?
Congress proposes a ban on Antisemitic speech. (Hint: A very real threat to the First Amendment)
Jim Geschke was inducted into the Marquis Who’s Who Registry in 2021.
The Department of Homeland Security (Est. 2002)
The DHS is the epicenter of The Blob, and it is everywhere. There is virtually no area of our lives where the DHS cannot claim some role, from travel to communication to your own thinking, which DHS calls “cognitive infrastructure” and claims falls under its jurisdiction. It asserts responsibility for developing public “resilience” to everything from pandemics to climate change to misinformation, allowing it to assert that your behaviors are part of its purview. It’s mastered a simple formula for continued funding: spreading fear (of each other), and using its many tools to advocate for whichever party is in power. — Racket News (Aug. 9, 2024)
Great work, Jim.
I’m appalled but unfortunately not surprised at what has happened very recently (during the last month or so) in the UK. People being imprisoned for comments and opinions they recently posted on Facebook. It’s a very big topic. My view? Freedom of speech cannot be altered in anyway, not without being lost.
There are two very recent interviews by Jordan Peterson with an English journalist, named Tommy Robinson. If you want to understand what’s happening in the UK (and in the US and Canada), well, they are worth watching.
For me to watch this all unfold is particularly interesting and also disturbing… I went to school with Sir Kier Starmer, same class for 5 or 6 years, played on the same rugby team with him for years etc. Nobody I know from those days is surprised or shocked that Kier is where he is today. Jordan Peterson summed him up perfectly… a totalitarian Utopian narcissistic Leftist