The Pentagon is no longer content to manage information. According to a lawsuit filed by The New York Times, it now wants to control the press itself.
 
In a sweeping First Amendment challenge, The New York Times and national security reporter Julian E. Barnes have sued the Department of War over a new press-access policy that would allow Pentagon officials to revoke journalists’ credentials for publishing stories the government disfavors – even when those stories rely on unclassified information obtained entirely outside of the Pentagon complex.
 
At the center of this case is a new rule for PFACs – Pentagon Facility Alternate Credentials – the badges that have allowed reporters to move around the building and cover briefings, hallway encounters, and day-to-day operations for nearly 80 years. From World War II to 9/11 to Iraq and Afghanistan, that access has been essential to independent reporting on the military.
 
Under the new rule, Pentagon officials can immediately suspend and ultimately revoke a journalist’s PFAC if they conclude the reporter has “solicited,” received, or published “unauthorized” information – even if the information is unclassified and the newsgathering happened entirely outside the building.
 
Such punishments would have clearly aimed to prevent The Washington Post’s scoop that a secondary missile strike killed survivors on a presumed drug-smuggling vessel. This is a revelation so disturbing that some leaders of the Republican-controlled House and Senate are demanding public disclosure of an unedited video of the boat strike.
 
Would the public and Congress be better off not knowing about these strikes? That sort of “unauthorized” – read: embarrassing – journalism appears to be precisely what this policy is designed to deter.
 
Even routine acts of reporting are swept into the danger zone. Asking questions of Defense Department employees, or publicly posting a call for tips on social media, can be deemed “solicitation” and used as grounds for revoking a reporter’s credentials.
 
Worse still, this policy authorizes officials to pull access for vaguely defined “unprofessional conduct that might serve to disrupt Pentagon operations.” The Times says this gives Pentagon leadership “unbridled discretion” to punish disfavored reporters and outlets – exactly the sort of standardless power courts have repeatedly said violates both the First and Fifth Amendments.
 
The Pentagon compounded the crackdown on the media by demanding that reporters sign an “acknowledgment” stating they had read and “understood” the policy. Journalists from nearly every major news organization refused, warning that signing would legitimize a system that punishes routine newsgathering. As a result, they turned in their PFACs and lost day-to-day access to the building.
 
The New York Times, perhaps predictably, criticized the Pentagon’s inclusion of the “next generation of the Pentagon press corps” – which includes, commendably, new and wider media. But, as The Times notes, it also includes influencers friendly to the administration. The lawsuit argues that this is not a neutral security policy, but a viewpoint-based press-access regime.
 
If the policy takes hold, The Times warns, the longstanding adversarial tension between press and government will collapse. It will be replaced by a system in which only approved narratives are permitted, forbidding stories like the missile strike on survivors of a sunken boat, conducted in the name of the American people.
 
That would not be press oversight. That would be press censorship.

​Jon Richelieu-Booth, 50, an IT consultant from West Yorkshire, returned home from a trip to Florida with a few harmless souvenirs that included snapshots taken by friends of him shooting what appeared to be semi-automatic shotguns.
 
Richelieu-Booth posted the images on LinkedIn with some routine notes about his work and travel.
 
In the United States, where firing guns on private property is legal, such a post would attract little attention beyond a few “likes.” But this is the UK, where an Irish comedian was arrested this summer for a tasteless joke. So it didn’t take long for West Yorkshire police to show up at Richelieu-Booth’s home. The officers declined to examine evidence that the pictures were taken in Florida; perhaps the semi-tropical foliage and algae-scummed pond in the background were proof enough.
 
Under the UK’s increasingly Orwellian speech laws, however, well enough is rarely left alone.
 
The police returned a few weeks later to arrest Richelieu-Booth. He was held overnight before being released on bail. His phones and digital devices were confiscated, effectively destroying his business and livelihood and launching what he described as “13 weeks of hell.” Officers visited Richelieu-Booth at home three more times before the Crown Prosecutor Service ultimately dropped all charges.
 
“And this is why we have the first and second amendments in America,” Elon Musk posted on X.
 
Reform Party UK leader Nigel Farage has urged Americans to be vigilant lest the speech police take root here. Once again, we should be grateful for our Constitution’s protections against state overreach.

​“I didn’t seek to be a media sensation,” 61-year-old Larry Bushart told local media after the retired Tennessee police officer spent 37 days in jail and was hit with a $2 million bond – all for reposting a meme on a Facebook thread.

At 11 p.m. on Sept. 21, officers came to Bushart’s Linden, Tennessee, home, handcuffed him, and locked him up for “threatening mass violence at a school.”
Did he?

Consider: Bushart’s post came after the assassination of Charlie Kirk and centered around a vigil in Perry County, Tennessee. The meme included a quote from then-candidate Donald Trump in the aftermath of a school shooting in Iowa, saying: “We have to get over it.”

When we checked candidate Trump’s remarks, we found that this quote was plucked from a longer and more sympathetic statement. But when it comes to taking something out of context, the Perry County Sheriff’s Department is unexcelled. You might find the shared meme highly offensive, or you might nod in agreement. But one thing it is not is a threat of mass violence at a school.

Nevertheless, the arrest affidavit for Bushart states that a “reasonable person would conclude [it] could lead to serious bodily injury, or death to multiple people.” Please tell us, where do we find these “reasonable people”? Probably only in the Perry County Sheriff’s office.

Meanwhile, in the more than five weeks Bushart spent in jail, he missed the birth of his granddaughter and lost a post-retirement job providing medical transportation. The charges against Bushart were finally dropped, but only after the case began to receive national notoriety.

“A free country does not dispatch police in the dead of night to pull people from their homes because a sheriff objects to their social media posts,” said Adam Steinbaugh of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which is representing Bushart’s in his lawsuit to defend his rights.
​
As this case moves forward, these local authorities in Tennessee may well find their infringement on Bushart’s speech to be expensive. Consider that a raid on a small-town newspaper in Kansas recently resulted in a $3 million settlement.

​The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard wrote about a fire that broke out backstage in a theater: “The clown came out to warn the public; they thought it was a joke and applauded. He repeated it; the acclaim was even greater. I think that's just how the world will come to an end: to general applause from wits who believe it's a joke.”

In our time, deepfake audio calls prompt people to wire their life savings to thieves, change their vote, or pay off sextortionists. One of the worst aspects of AI deepfake technology is that it can put actual authorities in the position of the frantic clown.

Denmark has had enough. The Danish culture minister, Jakob Engel-Schmidt, said: “Human beings can be run through the digital copy machine and be misused for all sorts of purposes and I’m not willing to accept that.”

Danish legislators are now supporting a measure to grant every citizen a right to control uses of their image, likeness, and voice, similar to “right of publicity” laws in many U.S. states that give Americans property rights to commercial uses of their identities. Under a proposal expected to soon pass Parliament, Danes will gain sweeping legal control over any digital recreation. This is important for Americans, because European law often sets standards in the global internet that adjust the policies of U.S. tech companies.

This Danish proposal, at first glance, might seem like overdue privacy armor against criminals, stalkers, propagandists, and hostile intelligence services. If Denmark passes this “right to your likeness,” as it appears poised to do, Danes will be able to demand takedowns and seek compensation. Platforms could face penalties for failing to comply.

But there’s a catch – a threat to free speech if Europeans and Americans are not careful in how such laws are drafted and enforced.

The Danish legislation does include carve-outs for “satire” and “parody,” meant to preserve comedy, creative expression, and political commentary. That is a good step. But these categories don’t explicitly protect other forms of speech. Such laws could easily be used to punish fair uses of AI, from commentary and criticism to historical fiction, docudramas, and much more.

If the parameters of an anti-deepfake law are too narrow, risk-averse platforms and creators will pull back. Algorithms will over-filter, even with exemptions. Studios and satirists will second-guess viral impressions, political cartoons, and docudramas depicting real people. Defamation law already chills speech. A sweeping likeness-ownership regime could freeze it solid.

When this issue came up in the U.S. Congress last year, the Motion Picture Association and civil liberties groups met with Members of Congress to craft a balanced approach. This approach, one with growing bipartisan support, would protect people from outrageous AI abuses – such as having one’s image and voice used for false endorsements, to perpetrate fraud, or for revenge porn – while fully protecting a wide range of AI uses in creative commentary, art, journalism, documentary work, and political speech.

No less important, Americans are learning that the best anti-AI filters are the ones we install in our brains.

Facebook is a great instructor, exposing us to one ridiculous scenario after another. Users are learning to ignore home security footage of rabbits gleefully jumping on backyard trampolines, or wolves and their cat friends ringing doorbells. As we get deeper into this age, we’re learning to relax our fingers and not share the ridiculous, the impossible, and the unlikely.
​
AI challenges our sense of reality. But it is also strengthening our patience and skepticism.

The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA) doesn’t just have teeth – it has saber-toothed razors.
 
The law, in effect since 2023, imposes draconian content moderation efforts on (mostly American) social media companies, threatening U.S. firms with fines of up to 6 percent of their global revenues. Worldwide fines of this magnitude – again, of revenues, not profits – could easily wreck companies with even the highest valuations.
 
To assess what content is impermissible, the EU relies on “trusted flaggers” – people who recommend content worthy of removal – in other words, censorship. As a report from the House Judiciary Committee on the DSA shows, these European content moderation decisions can also be enforced worldwide.
 
House Democrats criticized the majority HJC report. These Democratic members quoted a European expert saying that trusted flaggers have “no magic delete button.” They assert that platforms themselves would still decide whether to remove the flagged content.
 
John David Rosenthal of Law & Liberty responds:
 
“Regrettably, it is obvious from these remarks that the Democratic members have not done their due diligence on the subject … the ‘trusted flaggers’ are not individuals but rather organizations that are supposed to have relevant expertise in certain areas of the law. 
 
“In some cases, they are prima facie uncontroversial even from an American perspective, since their areas of specialization involve laws that are largely identical on both sides of the Atlantic … (A full list of the 43 ‘trusted flaggers’ named thus far is available from the European Commission here.)
 
“It’s another matter when their area of expertise is speech crimes. Ironically, the expert source quoted by the Democratic members – ‘Trusted flaggers do not have a magic delete button’ – is Managing Director of precisely one such organization: Josephine Ballon of the German organization HateAid. 
 
“In June, the German government – more precisely, the German telecommunications regulator, the Bundesnetzagentur – named HateAid as a ‘trusted flagger.’
 
“The Bundesnetzagentur (or “Federal Network Agency”) serves as Germany’s national DSA implementing authority or ‘Digital Services Coordinator’ (DSC). Moreover, HateAid was not only appointed by the German government, it is also funded by it. According to data in the German government’s Lobby Registry, it received nearly €1.3 million in support from two different government ministries in 2024, for instance.
 
“If Americans would not regard ‘flagging’ of speech for removal by an organization that is appointed and funded by the American government as anything other than government censorship, why should they regard it as something else when the organization is funded and appointed by the German government?” ​

​In this globalized world, you can enjoy Baskin-Robbins’ 31 flavors in Beijing. But if you are a Chinese online influencer, you had better not ignore the 31 behaviors that have just been banned by the People’s Republic of China.

The new regulations make it clear the state will no longer tolerate (as if it ever did) statements or content deemed “injurious to the reputation” of the Chinese Communist Party or socialism. Nor can Chinese netizens use AI to make deepfake satires ridiculing party or state leaders.

This is just the latest crackdown on speech in China. In 2018 the regime banned Winnie-the-Pooh when Beijing realized to its dismay that the jowly, chubby cartoon bear had become an online meme representing the quite-abundant frame of China’s dictator, Xi Jinping. Now, thanks to this latest round of speech restrictions, Chinese netizens will be shielded from AI images of the Beloved Leader kissing Putin on the lips or being dragged away under arrest.

A New Chinese Rule with an American Echo

Democracies can tolerate every manner of disrespect for our leaders. Lately, our leaders themselves have posted digital displays of disrespect toward each other (not to mention posts in supremely bad taste). With so many digital haymakers being tossed around, we can rest easy that the explicit restrictions of the Chinese government are unlikely to be adopted here.
But another section of Beijing’s new regulations gives us pause.

• The 18-point guideline issued by the Chinese government requires online influencers to have formal “qualifications” – such as the appropriate college degree – to be eligible to comment on law, finance, medicine, and education. Tracy Qu of The South China Morning Post reports that “live-streamers are also forbidden from showing an extravagant lifestyle, such as displaying luxury products and cash.”

Here at home, the U.S. government in recent years has pressured social media companies to deplatform “disinformation” – often just iconoclastic views – that later turn out to be correct. Witness how the consensus opinion that COVID-19 originated in a Wuhan, China, lab was a conspiracy theory – right up until both the directors of the FBI and the CIA told Congress that the virus was more likely than not of artificial origin.

A Bipartisan Appetite for Speech Regulation

• The Federal Trade Commission requires influencers to disclose any payments or free products they’ve received for an endorsement of a product. It is easy to imagine that Washington regulators will one day want to attach a requirement for professional expertise to comment on complicated topics.

 

• A bipartisan bill introduced in the last Congress by Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Lindsey Graham would create a new independent regulator with authority to work with the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to regulate the behavior of large, online social media platforms.

The intent is to guard Americans’ privacy, protect children, and strengthen national security. Yet it is easy to imagine that such a powerful internet regulatory agency would soon get Washington, D.C., back into the business of regulating content.
​
We can frown on China’s crackdown on influencers, but don’t be so smug as to think it can never happen here. Censorship usually arrives not in jackboots, but with a clipboard and a promise that it’s “for your safety.”

​Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) recently proposed a bill named after the slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk. It would restore a ban designed to prevent the domestic dissemination of government-sponsored propaganda.
 
What is the link between Kirk’s murder and government propaganda? Sen. Lee’s office cited a You.Gov poll that shows that one-quarter “of very liberal Americans find political violence justifiable – a startling revelation on the effects of extremist rhetoric from the ideological left.”
 
The statement continued: “Now, Americans are not only vulnerable to, but likely paying for their own propagandization.” It cited the now defunded National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Corporation for “incredibly politically biased” content.
 
But the use of tax dollars to fund propaganda is not a strictly left-wing phenomenon. As the U.S. government approached the ongoing shutdown, the Department of Housing and Urban Development posted this bulletin on its landing page.

​Agree or disagree, public employees blaming the “radical left” is nothing like the National Weather Service warning that a hurricane is set to make landfall in the Carolinas at 2 a.m. These statements also seem to violate the Hatch Act, which prohibits government employees from engaging in political activities on government time.
 
What Is Propaganda?
 
The word comes from an office Pope Gregory XV established in 1622 within the Roman Catholic Church during the Counter-Reformation – the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, or “Congregation for Propagating the Faith.” The missionary office gave modernity a new word that would, in time, take on darker meanings – referring to information that, even when true, is selectively presented to create inflammatory effects.
 
To be fair, the line between truth and propaganda is a thin one. But there are obvious extremes. The National Weather Service example is clearly public safety information. The White House under President Lyndon Johnson telling Congress and the American people that North Vietnam attacked U.S. naval forces on Aug. 4, 1964 (when it manifestly did not) was clearly propaganda. Much else lies in between.
 
So, then, Does the Lee Bill Make Sense?
 
Despite reservations, we believe it does. We endorse it.
 
Sen. Lee’s bill is a necessary effort to prevent government agencies from trying to shape the American people with their tax dollars. In a representative democracy, any shaping should be done the other way around.
 
Sen. Lee’s bill would do this by restoring the original intent of the Smith-Mundt Act, a law passed at the beginning of the Cold War in 1948. The United States was then standing up the Voice of America to broadcast U.S. government-produced news to the world as our truth to counter communist propaganda. Concerned that government-created editorial content could be turned inward, Smith-Mundt banned the U.S. government from influencing public opinion in at home.
 
In 2013, the domestic dissemination ban was repealed by a “modernization act.” The State Department and U.S. Agency for Global Media, which oversaw programming like that of the Voice of America, were permitted to release their content inside in the United States. Some argued the internet made the separation between domestic and foreign audiences all but impossible. The law still forbade “targeting” of Americans for the purposes of “propaganda.”
 
In this vein, we agree with Sen. Lee’s public defunding of NPR and PBS. Government-funded editorializing is never going to be seen as neutral and unbiased. And it always creates the opportunity for mischief, whether of the NPR variety (turning a blind eye to the Hunter Biden laptop story) or of housing officials using a federal website to attack “radical leftists.”
 
Our government must not create “news” or political content for Americans’ consumption. We don’t want our civil servants to issue political opinions – whether they blame the shutdown on left-wing, radical woke Marxists, or right-wing MAGA troglodytes.
 
We, the American people, are sometimes pointlessly divisive and sometimes civil and wise. But we can think for ourselves, thank you very much.

​We’ve chronicled the decline of free speech in the European Union, with Germany leading the way.

In Germany, “public insults against politicians,” “spreading malicious gossip,” “inventing fake quotes,” and reposting purported lies online are now crimes. For ridiculing politicians, Germans are being investigated – one case was launched after a social media poster called a politician “fat.” Social media users have been fined, had their devices confiscated, and have even been sent to prison.

California Senate Bill 771 would have similarly restricted speech, this time with million-dollar fines on social media companies if their algorithms promote content that “aids or abets” threats of violence or intimidation. Under the terms of this bill, the state would fine social media companies $1 million per violation if a post is amplified by the platform’s algorithm, even if the content is lawful and fact-based.

The law was drafted to address “rising incidents of hate-motivated harms.” But harassing, assaulting, and harming people are already crimes. Under the Supreme Court’s Brandenburg v. Ohio standard, incitement to violence can also be prosecuted. This bill aims to further punish language that leads to “coercive harassment, particularly when directed at historically marginalized groups.” Section 1 of the bill notes, in one example, speech regulation is needed because anti-Islamic “bias events” rose by 62 percent in 2023.

And yet Oussama Mokeddem of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) of California opposed the bill, saying: “This bill opens the door for bad actors to disproportionately pressure online corporations into silencing free speech to reduce their financial liability, with no protections for users against those mechanisms.”

A host of civil liberties groups objected that Senate Bill 771 was a recipe for government regulation of speech.

“In no way shape or form is that accurate,” responded Edward Howard, senior legal counsel for the Children’s Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego School of Law, who had advised lawmakers in drafting the bill. He told Sacramento’s KCRA: “The First Amendment protects offensive, salacious, insensitive, horrifying, terrible things that people say. The bill is in fact about the right … of every single one of your viewers to be protected from threats of violence in response to his speech if those threats of violence would legitimately and reasonably place a regular old person in fear for their lives or being harmed.”

But Howard was far more precise in his interview than the bill’s language itself, which punishes but does not define “intimidation.” There is no lack of laws against threats of violence. If Gov. Newsom had signed SB 771 into law, it would have necessarily deployed armies of regulators and a range of activist groups armed with dictionaries in trying to discern the threats lurking in mere stinging criticism.

In his veto statement, Gov. Newsom said he shared concerns about the growth of discriminatory threats, violence and coercive harassment online, but found this bill “premature.” He thus kicked the can down the road. The governor wrote that “our first step should be to determine if, and to what extent, existing civil rights laws are sufficient to address violations perpetuated through algorithms. To the extent our laws prove inadequate, they should be bolstered at that time.”

What shape would such bolstering take? Bad ideas never die; they just get repackaged. Such a law in California, as in Germany, would pose global concerns. By regulating speech on world-spanning social media platforms, California would effectively regulate speech for everyone, everywhere.
​
The same technology that brings the world into dialogue can also bring the world under this or that regime’s censorship. Free speech is liberty, the price of which is eternal vigilance.

​Rumors have swirled on Capitol Hill that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is drafting legislation to let Americans – whether skeptics of the COVID-19 origin story or late-night talk show hosts – sue the government for monetary damages when they are censored.

Sen. Cruz has now confirmed that he is indeed crafting such a bill, one that would create new legal remedies for those silenced by government pressure. His bill would also restrict “jawboning” – the process by which officials pressure social media companies or news outlets to suppress disfavored views. The Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee, which Cruz chairs, held a hearing Wednesday that explored government censorship and how to stop it.

• The first witness was famed legal scholar and Protect The 1st Senior Legal Advisor Eugene Volokh, who presented testimony explaining that “jawboning” can be defined benignly as an act of persuasion. It can also be:

“Government officials trying to coerce through the explicit or implicit threat of retaliation stemming from their position of authority, e.g., through the threat of enforcement or regulation. As a practical matter, the two meanings are closely intertwined, especially since it may be hard to tell whether there is an implicit ‘or else’ behind a request.”

Volokh raised the subtle issue of precisely defining what constitutes government coercion. Sen. Cruz emphasized the “or else” threats implicit in jawboning campaigns by powerful government agencies. On the other hand, Volokh asserted, no law should restrict the ability of government officials to communicate with journalists. For example, a White House press secretary should be allowed to tell journalists that they got a story wrong.

But Volokh made it clear – citing a strong line of legal precedent – that “a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly.” Quoting from the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in NRA v. Vullo, he said “a government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.”

• Sean Davis, executive director of The Federalist, gave a vivid account of what it feels like to be on the receiving end of speech coercion. Davis described the State Department’s Global Engagement Center (GEC) and how it targeted domestic news outlets:

“Despite the fact that GEC was explicitly prohibited by both the U.S. Constitution via the First Amendment and by the very statute which created and authorized the agency from targeting domestic speech, it nonetheless sought to drive us out of business by funding, developing, and distributing technologies and tools to reduce our reach, by bullying advertisers into blacklisting us and many other conservative outlets, and by coercing Big Tech companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google to throttle access to our content. In essence, our own government secretly and without any due process charged us with thought crimes, convicted us, and sentenced The Federalist to death.”

• Alex Berenson, journalist and author – whose reporting on COVID-19 was censored by Twitter – testified that social media companies did not want to censor users, but acted out of fear of the government. (The same dynamic is visible today when the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission publicly hints at regulatory action against broadcasters who air views he dislikes.)

About his ordeal, Berenson reflected on the dilemma of social media companies: 

“They viewed having to sacrifice speech from some users as the price they had to pay to stay in the administration’s good graces. Every company faces this calculus, whether a Democrat or Republican is in the White House.”

No American should have to calculate that one’s protected speech might trigger censorship or a regulatory crackdown.

Eugene Volokh added a grace note with a personal reflection that underscored the stakes. Fifty years ago to this day, he said, his parents brought him out of the Soviet Union.
​
Volokh concluded simply, that he wanted to “thank the United States of America for letting me in.”

​It is a welcome development that more than 550 Hollywood celebrities have restarted the Committee for the First Amendment. But we also have some reservations about the focus of this group, which we will explain below.

The committee announced on Wednesday: “The federal government is once again engaged in a coordinated campaign to silence critics in the government, the media, the judiciary, academia, and the entertainment industry.”

This is not a controversial statement. It is not interpretation. It is nothing but a recap of recent headlines.

The current administration has used executive orders to target individuals and law firms for past speech. Government funding is now being conditioned on how well universities align with administration priorities. The regulatory power of the Federal Communications Commission has been wielded to force media into paying large settlements over specious defamation lawsuits.

The Committee for the First Amendment was originally formed in the Cold War era to protect the Hollywood Ten, liberals and, to be accurate, actual communists like screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, who were blacklisted and persecuted by the House Un-American Activities Committee during the Joseph McCarthy era. Jane Fonda, whose father Henry was a founding member, said: “I’m 87 years old. I’ve seen war, repression, protest, and backlash. I’ve been celebrated, and I’ve been branded an enemy of the state. But I can tell you this: this is the most frightening moment of my life.”

We are concerned too. So why aren’t we 100 percent thrilled about the rebirth of the Committee for the First Amendment?

Like the parable of the man who sees the splinter in the other man’s eye, but not the log in his own, many on the left – just like so many on the right – only see the violations of their partisan opponents. It is all those evil Republicans, or those evil Democrats (leading MAGA influencers to now pine for the prosecution of George Soros… for what, exactly? Spending money on speech, as he is permitted to do under Citizens United?)

We suggest that Mark Ruffalo, Kerry Washington, Viola Davis, Ben Stiller, Aaron Sorkin, Barbra Streisand, Billie Ellish, and the rest take stock of the truth that for some years now, both parties have tried hard to misuse government power to silence each other. Alphabet/Google has publicly admitted that it buckled to secret pressure from the Biden administration to deplatform conservatives. The State Department secretly used government funds to use an NGO to persuade advertisers to blacklist conservative and libertarian news outlets. White House aides, who wielded tremendous regulatory power, called Mark Zuckerberg to scream at him over Facebook posts they wanted removed.
​
The First Amendment is sinking, and the recent actions of the Trump administration have thrown it an anvil when it needs a life preserver. It is good to get angry about the violation of speech rights of those we agree with. But we won’t have the strength to rescue free speech until we are all just as angry about the violation of the speech rights of people we don’t like.

​Many Americans on the right are upset about a recent letter in which Alphabet/Google acknowledged that YouTube did, in fact, censor conservative speech at the behest of the Biden White House. Meanwhile, many Americans on the left are deeply alarmed by how Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr inserted himself into the Jimmy Kimmel drama, threatening official retaliatory action if the late-night host stayed on the air.

Both sides are right about the other side, which means, of course, that both sides are in the wrong.

Yet somehow, the concept of a neutral principle that applies equally to everyone has become too hard for even highly educated policymakers to grasp. Wait, are you actually saying that free speech means that people who piss me off can say anything they want?

Yes, as hard as it is for some to grasp, that is what the First Amendment guarantees.

A way out of our current national free-speech debacle may, ironically, come from the universities, where the heckler’s veto has all too often prevailed. Universities are adopting the University of Chicago principles for free speech, which include this declaration:

“[I]t is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Although the University greatly values civility, and although members of the University community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussions about ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.”

Entire state university systems from North Carolina to Texas, as well as Princeton, Stanford, Harvard, Yale, and Johns Hopkins, have embraced the Chicago principles, more than 100 in all.

Now Harvey Silverglate, co-founder of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) makes a puckish suggestion in a wide-ranging interview with Tunku Varadarajan in The Wall Street Journal. Silverglate suggests a “Chicago statement for the nation,” declaring “it is not the proper role of the government to shield individuals” from statements and opinions they find objectionable.”
​
This is not likely to happen anytime soon, not with the censorship arms race now taking place in Washington, D.C., today. But it took only a few years for the Chicago principles to take hold in academia. Perhaps in a decade, could we see a similar declaration by our government?

​Netta Perkins, assistant basketball coach at the Paso Robles Unified School District in California, allegedly posted the following reaction to the assassination of Charlie Kirk: “God does not like ugly! Charlie Kirk reap wat u sow!” and “White on white crime let them sit in it!”
 
This post was, to put it mildly, a digital advertisement for ignorance and lack of empathy, not to mention poor grammar. The author might want to meditate on the phrase, “God does not like ugly.”
 
Some 145 Americans – including many teachers in high schools and universities – have been fired for posting statements similar to this one. But Perkins was not, and will not be, one of them.
 
The Paso Robles Unified School District announced:
 
“In some cases, you may see employees of private companies face immediate consequences for things they post online. Public schools, however, are public institutions and must follow constitutional protections such as the First Amendment.
 
“In practice, this means that even if a staff member or coach shares something online that many find upsetting, the District cannot legally take disciplinary action based on personal speech alone, unless it affects their ability to do their job or harms students.”
 
Some argue that a teacher should model character for students, especially in public fora. But once we start to evaluate every teacher’s public posts, millions of posts will suddenly become subject to angry, internal debates within school boards over one subjective judgment after another.
 
In a thoughtful piece, the editorial board of The San Luis Obispo Tribune explored the reasons why Perkins should not be fired for her post:
 
“Would we want it any other way? Would we really want to live in a nation where someone can be fired, or worse, for saying something critical of the party in power?”
 
The Tribune recounted the many examples of people on the right, as well as the left, who want to justify censorship because someone’s over-the-top rhetoric is likely to incite violence – while reserving the right to call their opponents “vermin” and “scum,” and, we would add, “fascists.”
 
The Tribune asked all sides to consider the “irony of silencing critics.”
 
“Charlie Kirk – the man whose legacy is being championed by all comers on the right – would have stood against such encroachment on this fundamental American right, because he was a fierce defender of free speech.
 
"You should be allowed to say outrageous things," he said shortly before his death …
 
“Those agitating for the firing – or just the muzzling – of political opponents like Coach Perkins or any of the 145 or so employees who were actually terminated may want to slow down and ask themselves this simple question.
 
“What would Charlie have done?”
 
Many on both sides should consider that the irony of silencing critics is really just another way of acknowledging that karma boomerangs. It is only a matter of time before the silencers become the silenced.

​For all the recent turmoil about the state of free speech in America, the greatest censorship threats to American speech are coming from foreign governments. Congress is beginning to do something about it.

Foreigners Getting Bolder About Censoring Americans

Small-minded regulators are increasingly relying on the global nature of American social media to extend the reach of their censorship into the United States.

Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, for example, issued takedown orders to social media platforms that included tweets made by Americans. Moraes’s orders to X were issued in secret, with threats to jail X’s Brazilian employees if they did not comply. Similarly, the European Union’s draconian regulatory approach to online speech, often dubbed the “Brussels Effect,” threatens U.S. social media companies with eye-popping fines if they refuse to take down the posts of Americans. In one instance, a senior EU regulator, Thierry Breton, ordered X to remove an interview with then-candidate Donald Trump or face serious legal consequences.

It is hard to imagine how anyone could think that it somehow serves democracy to try to suppress an interview with a presidential candidate.

Now we have a timely and necessary defense of our First Amendment rights, the No Censors on Our Shores Act. Introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-FL), the legislation was passed on a bipartisan voice vote by the House Judiciary Committee. This was a rare bipartisan recognition that Americans' free speech deserves protection not only from domestic threats but also from foreign censorship.

What the Bill Does

The bill takes aim at foreign government officials who attempt to suppress the speech of U.S. citizens, especially when those actions affect Americans on U.S. soil. It amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to make these officials inadmissible at U.S. ports of entry and removable if they commit actions that would violate the First Amendment were they carried out by a U.S. official. This creates a clear legal consequence for foreign actors who attempt to undermine constitutional rights from afar.

The No Censors on Our Shores Act addresses this by sending a clear message: If you violate the speech rights of Americans, you are not welcome here.

“The Censorship Industrial Complex around the world isn’t just made up of advocates or academics. It is wrapped in the robes of the judiciary in Brazil, wears the uniform of police in the U.K., and wields ministerial power across the European Union,” said Rep. Issa. “Global government officials are now on notice: Deny our American citizens their First Amendment rights and you will be kept out of this country or removed if you are here.”

At its core, this legislation reasserts that Americans’ right to speak freely isn’t subject to the whims of a foreign official. It is heartening that this measure passed the committee with bipartisan support. It now deserves a vote on the House floor, where it should pick up strong support from both sides of aisle.
​
In short, don’t expect to see Moraes or Breton with their families in Disneyland.

​Alphabet’s recent letter to Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, was nothing short of a white-flag surrender from the world’s most prolific social media company.

Yes, Google’s parent company, which also owns YouTube, finally admitted what conservatives have said all along – the Biden administration leaned on social media companies to censor conservative voices.

Here’s the money quote:

“[A]dministration officials, including President Biden, created a political atmosphere that sought to influence the actions of platforms based on their concerns regarding misinformation.”

And then this stunner:

“It is unacceptable and wrong when any government, including the Biden Administration, attempts to dictate how the Company moderates content, and the Company has consistently fought against those efforts on First Amendment grounds.”

Translation: The White House bullied us, and we caved.

As we’ve reported, that administration used quiet coercion to remove conservative content, ranging from reviews of content by eighty FBI agents, to taxpayer-funded efforts to quietly dissuade companies from running ads in conservative and libertarian news sites and magazines, to White House officials picking up the phone and screaming at senior people at Meta.

Alphabet now vows to accept deplatformed speakers:

“No matter the political atmosphere, YouTube will continue to enable free expression on its platform, particularly as it relates to issues subject to political debate.”

The company affirmed that it has never run a “fact-checking program,” one way in which biased advice prompted Twitter and Facebook to shut down speech during the censorship era. It pledged never to use fact-checkers.

So what should we make of this sudden confession?

First, it sometimes pays to be paranoid. The many conservatives who complained about vanishing content were not crazy. Second, credit Chairman Jordan for pressuring Alphabet to admit its censorship and to speak openly about behind-the-scenes pressure from government. Third, we are not out of the woods yet.

The danger of government pressure leading to censorship is greater than ever. It comes now not from “jawboning” officials in Washington, D.C., but from actors in Brussels and the European Union.

Alphabet wrote that the EU’s Digital Services Act “could be interpreted in such a way as to require Alphabet and other providers of intermediary services to remove lawful content, jeopardizing the companies’ ability to develop and enforce global policies that support rights to free expression and access to information.”
​
That’s the next battleground, and it is one in which liberals and conservatives should join forces to defend American speech from foreign censorship.

Erika Kirk spoke of how her husband, Charlie Kirk, was assassinated while appearing on campus to hold a dialogue with college students who disagreed with him. Some admirers of Charlie Kirk have supported the censorship of people who criticized her late husband. Erika Kirk chose to speak up for free speech.

Referring to Kirk’s legacy in his Turning Point USA organization, she said:

“And we will continue to hold debates and dialogue. The First Amendment of our Constitution is the most human amendment. We are naturally talking beings, naturally believing beings. And the First Amendment protects our rights to do both. No assassin will ever stop us for standing up to defend those rights ever.
​
“Because when you stop the conversation, when you stop the dialogue, this is what happens. When we lose the ability and the willingness to communicate, we get violence."

​We recently praised Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr for a spirited defense of free speech. Regarding so-called “hate speech,” Carr made it clear that there is no such category of speech that can be censored under American law.

What a difference a few days make.

Chairman Carr this week threatened to effectuate the removal of late-night host Jimmy Kimmel from the air. Carr told a podcaster, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.”

• Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) responded: “What he said there was dangerous as hell … that’s right out of Goodfellas. That’s right out of a mafioso coming into a bar going, ‘nice bar you have here. It’d be a shame if something happened to it’ … I think it is unbelievably dangerous for government to put itself in the position of saying, ‘We’re going to decide what speech we like and what we don’t, and we’re going to threaten to take you off the air if we don’t like what you’re saying.’”

We do not find Kimmel particularly amusing, and certainly not someone we would stay up late to watch. Sen. Cruz also made it clear he didn’t appreciate Kimmel and hated many things he said. Sen. Cruz understands that Kimmel’s First Amendment rights are our rights.

The Shoe Is Now on the Other Ideological Foot

For years, Protect The 1st has complained about the left’s cancel culture. The FBI detailed 80 agents to privately order social media companies to remove content, almost all of it conservative content. We wrote about the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, which funded a London-based NGO that privately advised corporate advertisers to avoid such dangerous publications as Reason magazine. We denounced left-wing mobs on campus that exercised the heckler’s veto and threatened speakers with violence.

We called out this heavy-handed “jawboning” as nothing but coercion from a government with immense regulatory authority.

Conservatives Standing Up for the First Amendment

Do conservatives now really want to institutionalize these practices by using the power of the Federal Communications Commission to approve media mergers as a way to regulate speech? Many Republicans and conservatives are demonstrating that the better angels of our nature are still perched on many shoulders.

• Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS): “We all should be very cautious. The conservative position is free speech is free speech, and we better be very careful about any lines we cross in diminishing free speech.”

 

• Chairman Brett Guthrie (R-Ky), House Energy and Commerce Committee: “Just because I don’t agree with what someone says, we need to be very careful. We have to be extremely cautious to try to use government to influence what people say.”

 

• Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), House Judiciary Committee: “This is a total market decision.”

Many more Republicans we speak to on Capitol Hill are also disturbed by this trend at the FCC, both for what it does to our constitutional liberties, and how it may be used against them by a future administration.

A High-Profile Liberal Speaks Out for “American Moxie”

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), a liberal’s liberal from a blue state, showed similar courage when he spoke out against social media’s blocking of The New York Post’s coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop story.

He writes in The Wall Street Journal that President Trump and Vice President Vance should “change direction.” In particular, he called on the latter to live up to the promise of his speech before the Munich Security Conference, in which he accurately criticized Germany, the UK, and other countries in the EU for using heavy-handed tactics to silence speakers.

Rep. Khanna writes:

“A government that feels comfortable bullying the private sphere – whether businesses, hospitals, universities, employers or individuals – strips away our audacity as Americans to speak our minds and call out those in power. If we lose that we lose our American moxie.”
​
Here’s to hoping that Chairman Carr returns to the free speech convictions that were such a hallmark of his prior work.

​“The crownless again shall be king” wrote Bilbo Baggins in a poem in J.R.R. Tolkien’s Fellowship of the Ring. In America, the conservative party – once crownless – now controls the White House, the Senate, and the House. When it comes to protecting our First Amendment rights, are Republicans going to use their power wisely?
 
Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas has often exposed and criticized the previous Biden administration and its allies for censoring conservatives on social media and using coercive techniques to silence and “cancel” conservative speakers in academia, media, and corporations. The power to use the law and agencies to punish political opponents and critics for speech is for many an intoxicating temptation.
 
If only those stupid people would just shut up!
 
Cruz, a fan of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings series, in a recent podcast interview compared the desire to misuse regulatory authority to silence critics to the almost unbearable temptation exerted by the magical ring of power that could corrupt even the most virtuous.
 
We saw this on full display in the Biden administration, which assigned government agents to secretly censor social media. Now Cruz is applying this literary trope to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr, who publicly threatened to punish the corporate sponsors of Jimmy Kimmel Live! As we all know, it worked. Kimmel is canceled.
 
Sen. Cruz said:
 
“So the Federal Communications Commission is in charge of granting broadcast licenses. So ABC, NBC, CBS, they have licenses from the FCC. It is true that under statute, they are required to be in the public interest. What he [Carr] is saying is Jimmy Kimmel was lying [about the background of Charlie Kirk’s killer]. That’s true. He was lying. And his lying to the American people is not in the public interest. And so he [Carr] threatens explicitly, we’re going to cancel ABC’s license. We’re going to take him off the air so ABC cannot broadcast anymore.
 
“It’s so attractive,” Sen. Cruz said of censorship. “It’s sort of like conservatives saying, wait, wait, if we have government, we have power. We can ban the media.”
 
Sen. Cruz made it clear he found this offensive to the American ideal of free speech. He also offered a practical “live-by-the-sword, die-by-the-sword” reason for this administration and conservatives to abandon this path.
 
“Going down this road, there will come a time when a Democrat wins again, wins the White House … They will silence us.”
 
An arms race is developing between the two parties, established under President Biden and now racing further ahead under President Trump. Unless sides agree to mutual disarmament, censorship of partisan opponents will become a permanent feature of American political life.

​In the last few years, we’ve documented the abuse of government power to shut down conservative speech. Does that now make it okay to use government power to shut down progressive speech, especially if it’s way out of line?

Here’s a little history: the State Department under the Biden administration used its now-shuttered division, the Global Engagement Center, to fund efforts through a London-based NGO to persuade advertisers to boycott conservative- and libertarian-leaning news outlets. We’ve reported on the Twitter files and from Meta-Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg about threats from the White House to shut down conservative speakers.

The rationale for censorship was that conservative journalism, posts, and rhetoric were “disinformation” that was too “dangerous” to society to be permitted.

Now, in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s murder, some progressive voices are testing the patience of conservative critics of online censorship. Some posts about Kirk from progressives have been healing and compassionate, but some have been insensitive, cruel, and even gloating.

In reaction, Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA), who sits on the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, posted this:

“I am going to use Congressional authority and every influence with big tech platforms to mandate immediate ban for life of every post or commenter that belittled the assassination of Charlie Kirk. If they ran their mouth with their smartass hatred celebrating the heinous murder of that beautiful young man who dedicated his whole life to delivering respectful conservative truth into the hearts of liberal enclave universities, armed only with a Bible and a microphone and a Constitution … those profiles must come down.

“So, I’m going to lean forward on this fight, demanding that big tech have zero tolerance for violent political hate content, the user to be banned from ALL PLATFORMS FOREVER. I’m also going after their business licenses and permitting, their businesses will be blacklisted aggressively, they should be kicked from every school, and their drivers licenses should be revoked. I’m basically going to cancel with extreme prejudice these evil, sick animals who celebrated Charlie Kirk’s assassination. I’m starting that today. That is all.”

Virtually everything Rep. Higgins said to characterize these speakers – running their mouths with “smartass hatred” – could be leveled at some conservative speech. Of course, actual endorsements of Charlie Kirk’s murder shouldn’t be posted by any company. Beyond that, once we start down the path of banning insensitive speakers “from all platforms forever,” pulling their business licenses and permits, “blacklisting” their businesses, we will have created a Leviathan government censorship machine that can be used against anyone at any time, including Rep. Higgins himself the next time a progressive administration is in power.

It is hard to accept, but the landscape of free speech is bound to include smartasses, jerks, smirkers, and ghouls who run their mouths. Narrow the horizons and all speech will ultimately be in danger. Besides, letting the jerks be jerks allows them to reveal their real selves to the public.

Rep. Higgins correctly notes that the late Charlie Kirk went into what can often appropriately be called “liberal enclave universities” armed with nothing but a Bible, a microphone, and – we would add – a smile. Whether you nodded in agreement or seethed in objection to what Charlie Kirk said, he had the courage to say it with good humor and to respectfully listen to those who disagreed with him.
​
That’s the spirit America needs now, from people on all sides.

​Two events cast long shadows over the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing on Wednesday concerning the threat of European censorship to American speech and innovation.

One was the arrest this week of comedy writer Graham Linehan by five armed police officers at London’s Heathrow Airport. If anyone should doubt that the speech laws of the UK’s Online Safety Act, as well as the Digital Services Act of the European Union, were meant to be global, it had to be the arrest of this Irish citizen who had posted his offending tweets from Arizona.

The other shadow was cast by the looming midterm elections, with Democratic Members firing shots not at Europe but at the White House. Ranking Member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) launched a spirited attack on President Trump for his treatment of the First Amendment, including the use of regulatory authority to coerce a $16 million settlement from Paramount over a nuisance lawsuit about CBS’s editorial decisions.

Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) archly noted that while Rep. Raskin spoke, an aide stood behind him with a large poster full of headlines “from countless articles criticizing Donald Trump” – underscoring, that whatever one thinks of the controversies of the Trump administration, free speech in America remains robust.

The star of the show was Nigel Farage, MP and the leader of the UK Reform Party in Parliament. His remarks were well set up by Chairman Jordan who noted that when European Commission member Thierry Breton had fired off a letter in 2024 to Elon Musk complaining about X’s posting of an interview with Donald Trump, he threatened “full use of our toolbox.”

This toolbox under the EU’s Digital Services Act includes fines that can reach 10 to 20 percent of global revenues. Enough of those could amount to a potential death-penalty fine for even the largest social media companies.

Breton, Rep. Jordan said, “threatened an American running an American company regarding our most important election.”

Farage seamlessly picked up on Jordan’s characterization, telling the committee that he came bearing bad news from the “land of the Magna Carta and the Mother of Parliaments.” He had come to the United States, he said, “to be a klaxon” warning of the impending threats from the UK and EU to free speech in America.

In his formal testimony, Farage told the committee that the British regulator Ofcom “purports to have the authority to demand that American citizens who operate web platforms provide Ofcom with incriminating information about themselves and their services. Failure to respond to these demands, or any evasion in a response to these demands, is a criminal offense in the United Kingdom, punishable by arrest, fines, and a term of imprisonment of up to two years’ duration.”

This threat is far from merely rhetorical, as the arrest of Linehan underscores.

“Ofcom has already threatened four American companies with exactly these penalties,” Farage told the committee. “I repeat: regulatory bodies in the United Kingdom are actively threatening to imprison American citizens for exercising their protected Constitutional rights.”

There were some notes of bipartisanship. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), whose district includes Silicon Valley, said that she has long been “critical of the approach of the EU” on internet regulation.

Chairman Jordan defended American technology companies as an “engine of innovation in our global economy.” He noted that European regulation has not resulted in the rise of any competitive European champion.

“China wins as Europe hurts both itself and America,” Chairman Jordan said.
​
Overall, the hearing was noisy, contentious, and spirited – in all, exactly what one would hope for in a discussion about free speech.

Call it Euro-creep – the tendency of Europe’s draconian censorship laws to seep into American law.

Germany is prosecuting digital speakers for “public insults against politicians.” Not to be outdone, California passed two laws that punish speakers for posting satirical memes and parodies of politicians, while requiring large online platforms to act as the government’s censors and remove political humor from their sites.

On Friday, the satirical site, Babylon Bee, and video-sharing platform Rumble, prevailed in a lawsuit before a federal district court. The court swept the two California laws into the dustbin of unconstitutional attempts to control speech.

Lowbrow Humor Gets Equal Protection

The California laws targeted the use of digital technology and AI to create “materially deceptive” content. Think of concocted images of President Donald Trump standing next to a giant cannon on the White House lawn to fire deportees into the air, or Gov. Gavin Newsom deploying a giant can of Febreze over San Francisco to mask the city’s “poo smell.”

As Judge John Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California wrote, “Novel mediums of speech and even lowbrow humor have equal entitlement to First Amendment protection and the principles undergirding the freedom of expression do not waver when technological changes occur.”

Targeting Some Speakers, Protecting Others

Concluding that California’s approach “suffers from a ‘compendium of traditional First Amendment infirmities,’” the court found that the laws discriminated on the basis of “content, viewpoint, and speaker.”

One of the laws only punished content that could “harm” a candidate’s electoral prospects. But “materially deceptive content that helps a candidate or promotes confidence would not be subject to penalty.”

Broadcasters and some internet websites are covered by more lenient rules, exempt from general or special damages. But no such leniency is afforded parodists.

Deputizing “Censorship Czars”

Worst of all, California sought to deputize legions of internet users as plaintiffs, allowing them to seek general and special damages, including attorneys’ fees and cost, even from those who merely repost the offending image. The court rightly concluded that “this attempts to stifle speech before it occurs or actually harms anyone as long as it is ‘reasonably likely’ to do so and it allows almost anyone to act as a ‘censorship czar.’”

Imagine the flood of lawsuits that would have drowned nearly all satirical speech if this litigation factory had been allowed to continue.

The Solution to Bad Speech Is… the Envelope Please… More Speech!

Judge Mendez acknowledged the problem of digital technology spreading deceptive stories and deepfakes misleading people. But burying the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech under a heap of lawsuits is not the answer.

“When it comes to political expression,” Judge Mendez wrote, “the antidote is not prematurely stifling content creation and singling out specific speakers but encouraging counter speech, rigorous fact-checking, and the uninhibited flow of democratic discourse.”

The mere fact that the California legislature and Gov. Newsom saw nothing amiss with these laws should serve as a wake-up call that the First Amendment is poorly understood and respected, even by elected officials. “It is alarming to think that government officials could decide which political speech is permitted, silenced, or erased altogether,” said Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski.
​
We agree. Vigilance is called for, especially considering that Babylon Bee still has to defend itself against similar laws in Hawaii.

​The historian Robert Paxton notes that governments of all stripes are susceptible to authoritarian trappings, especially when their narratives suggest “obsessive preoccupation with community decline.”

This happens when power elites – whether left, center, or right – become convinced of their correctness close ranks to maintain dominance. Before long, they begin acting “in ways quite contrary” to their professed beliefs – a pattern Vice President J.D. Vance condemned in a blistering critique of Europe’s entrenched interests in Munich in February).

All this makes a recent post by Jonathan Turley particularly resonant. “Free speech is in a free fall in Europe,” he observes. This dynamic helps explain why Germany’s tendency to censor speech continues to find new targets:

• A comment mocking a politician’s weight warranted a criminal inquiry

 

• An opposition newspaper editor was indicted and fined for posting a meme ridiculing the hypocrisy of a minister’s supposed support for free speech

 

• A Bavarian pensioner was convicted for posting satirical Nazi-era images on X, because he did not make his critique of a government minister sufficiently clear

 

• Annual police raids target so-called “digital arsonists.”

Germany’s current coalition politicians seem intent on furthering, as the examples above demonstrate, crackdowns on speech. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Filipp Piatov excoriated this censorship:

“Germany’s establishment is fighting to reassert control over public discourse – especially online, where it’s losing ground. The main targets are social-media platforms and populist parties. The tools are censorship and criminal law.

“This isn’t really about fighting disinformation. It’s about regaining control, which they sense is slipping away.”

Alas, Germany is hardly alone in this regard. As we’ve written before – and undoubtedly will again – the European Union’s Digital Services Act threatens to censor the speech of Americans and other foreign citizens, making it the new price of simply doing business. Across the Channel, the increasingly restrictive United Kingdom seems locked in step with the EU.

There, the Online Safety Act is poised to wreak havoc on privacy, free speech, and even the safety of the children it purports to protect.
​
Jonathan Turley is rightfully leery of EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s recent declaration of a Pax Europaea. If the current pattern of free speech violations holds, it signifies a larger abandonment of the shared values that helped build robust post-war democracies on both sides of the Atlantic.

Rep. Jim Jordan, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, followed up on his committee’s report on how Europe enforces censorship of Americans on U.S. platforms by taking his complaints to the censors themselves.

The Ohio Congressman led a bipartisan delegation to explain to regulators in Brussels, London, and Dublin exactly why Americans find European censorship of American social media platforms so disturbing.

“America innovates, China replicates, and Europe regulates,” complained a member of the delegation, Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI). In an interview in Brussels, Fitzgerald noted that “there are seven corporations that are currently listed as gatekeepers by the DSA (Digital Services Act) and six of the seven are American corporations” being punished for their speech.
Did this message land?

“Nothing we heard in Europe eased our concerns about the (EU’s) Digital Services Act, Digital Markets Act, or (the UK) Online Safety Act,” Jordan said. “These sweeping regulations create a serious chilling effect on free expression and threaten the First Amendment rights of American citizens and companies.”

Like so many media outlets, Spotify was caught in the crossfire between free speech and medical authority during the pandemic. Joe Rogan on his popular podcast interviewed a vaccine-skeptical doctor who asserted that the antiparasitic medication, Ivermectin, can cure COVID-19. Spotify also removed “War Room,” the Steve Bannon podcast for calling on President Trump to seize CDC Director Anthony Fauci and FBI Director Christopher Wray and put their “heads on spikes.”

In this investigation, we caution House investigators to always keep in mind that Spotify has a First Amendment right to ban Bannon, curtail Rogan, and play the treacly “Dr. Fauci Say” (“Doctor Fauci, save me, I’m going insane”!) 24 hours a day. The First Amendment allows Spotify to make its own editorial decisions regarding Ivermectin or anything else. It can only be dissuaded by the free market of its listeners if it should decide to dedicate itself 24/7 to ridiculing President Trump or former President Biden, the Bible, the Quran, or apple pie.

If it decided to pull Bannon for making a graphic and menacing statement, Spotify was well within its rights to do so. And when rocker Neil Young pulled his music from Spotify in protest of Rogan’s COVID coverage – agree or disagree – he was fully exercising his First Amendment right to free association. Or in this case, disassociation.

The First Amendment only restricts the government’s ability to abridge speech.

The House Judiciary Committee should, then, be commended for correctly targeting its investigation on how the Biden administration and the European Union may have used coercive state power to bludgeon Spotify into censoring itself for them. Such “jawboning” from powerful regulators can never be treated as mere suggestions. It is more like the Mafia’s protection racket shakedowns: You have a nice little media company there, shame if anything happened to it.

At the time Spotify took this action, Biden press secretary Jen Psaki praised it as a “positive step” while urging other social media platforms to do more. Now the House Judiciary Committee is asking Spotify to turn over any communications and judicial orders from the EU, the UK, and a host of other governments since 2020.
​
This is the right approach. We praise Chairman Jordan and his colleagues for taking their case directly to the sources of censorship. Meanwhile, as we recently pointed out, conservatives in the United States should not punish the targets of past official censorship and coercion by enacting a censorship regime of their own.

Conservatives, firmly in power, hold the whip hand over their long-standing tormentors, including those who for years privately censored their speech. The Trump administration is now exploring ways to use its regulatory power to punish Silicon Valley and social media companies for suppressing conservative voices on private platforms.

• But punishing people who refused to associate their platforms with conservative speech by using government to infringe on their speech and associational rights threatens to permanently degrade the First Amendment.

​

• Conservative regulators should also realize they are publicly toying with the very weapons that will almost certainly be used to silence them again, only in more effective ways, if another progressive president is elected.

Consider Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson, who is threatening to use Section 5 of the FTC Act – which outlaws unfair or deceptive practices – to target social media companies for selective enforcement of their terms of service. Chairman Ferguson also contemplates using antitrust law to “prosecute any unlawful collusion between online platforms, and confront advertiser boycotts which threaten competition among those platforms.”
 
Ferguson told an audience in March: “I’m not looking for censorship qua censorship. I’m looking for exercises of market power that might reveal themselves in censorship.”
 
Conservatives, bruised by rough treatment at the hands of big social media companies, understandably exult in this role reversal. Discrimination against conservative speech clearly happened, from Facebook’s efforts to exclude the conservative Prager University from its digital audiences, to crackdowns on posts that asserted that COVID-19 originated in a lab in Wuhan, China (which the FBI and CIA now believe it probably did), to efforts by secret entities within the State Department to persuade advertisers to defund conservative and libertarian publications.
​
Are consumer-protection complaints about companies’ editorial judgments, which would put the government firmly into the business of managing speech, a legitimate approach to reform? Section 5 allows the government to go after a company selling an ointment that it falsely claims prevents COVID-19 infections. That would not be a “speech” issue. It would be fraud enforcement. But should the government be able to tell a private company it must post a conservative or a progressive political statement, or be in violation of the law?
 
Labeling such editorial choices as supposed “evidence” of collusion inevitably carries the risk of government manipulation of private speech.
 
It would in fact be a violation of the First Amendment for the government to tell private actors – whether a network news organization or a social media platform – what to say or not say. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Moody v. NetChoice that social media companies have a First Amendment right to select, order, and rank third-party posts as they see fit. Prosecuting content and its moderation under unfair or deceptive trade practices would install government as a national content manager and editor-in-chief.
 
This is worse than overkill. The essential problem of content management censorship was, after all, driven primarily by government. Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan that he received calls from White House staffers who screamed at him about Facebook’s content decisions. The FBI had 80 agents assigned to evaluating social media posts as possible disinformation. Agencies from the IRS, to the Department of Homeland Security, to the State Department, pressured platforms on their posts. All of them have enormous regulatory power over Silicon Valley, making their “jawboning” for editorial changes far stronger than polite suggestions. Changing the jawboner to the FTC is just a new version of this regulatory game of three-card Monte.
 
The application of laws about fair trade practices and antitrust enforcement to speech would be an abusive extension of Washington’s power. It is easy to imagine this power being misused in myriad ways. Conservatives above all need to keep in mind that the weapons used now to punish their progressive opponents will surely one day be in their opponent’s hands as well.
 
The better way forward is to renounce the tools of punishment and restore respect for the First Amendment. With a few social media platforms making up so much of the nation’s townhall, social media companies should live up to a civic – even a moral – obligation to not discriminate against the right or the left. But it is ultimately up to the public to enforce such standards with what they click and what they purchase.
 
If this sounds naïve, take stock of how companies are already listening and responding to public pressure. X pioneered the freeing of moderation from government control and developed “community notes” to crowdsource fact-checking. Meta is testing this crowdsource technique for Facebook, Instagram, and Threads. Meta also got rid of its notoriously biased “fact checkers.” Google is standing up to political demands by activist-employees. Such market-driven reforms are the way to go, not speech regulation from Washington regulators.
 
Conservatives would do well to remember Marcus Aurelius, who wrote that the “best revenge is to be unlike him who performed the injury.”

A report released last week by the House Judiciary Committee adds detail to our report about how the European Union’s 2022 Digital Services Act allows Europeans to control and censor Americans’ speech at home and around the world.
 
The committee subpoenaed nine major technology companies to produce communications with foreign censors around the world. Analyzing the responses, the committee gained insight into the EU’s censorship goals from its requests for social media companies to identify “misleading or deceptive content,” “disinformation, “actual or foreseeable negative effects on civil discourse and electoral processes,” “hate speech,” and (this one’s a gobsmacker) “information which is not illegal.”
 
These vague and subjective standards reflect German rules that have criminalized insults to German politicians. They also fall in line with the actions of former EU Commissioner for Internal Markets Thierry Breton who wanted to sanction X for broadcasting a live interview with Donald Trump during the 2024 campaign. Social media companies – almost all of them American companies – now have their content subjected to continuous scrutiny by government-designated “trusted flaggers.”

• The committee reports: “In practice, these ‘trusted flaggers’ are uniformly pro-censorship, and in many cases, they are government-funded, meaning that these so-called ‘trusted’ flaggers are incentivized to censor speech critical of politicians or the current regime.”

The Digital Services Act threatens these American social media companies with up to 6 percent of their global revenue per violation. The law, however, offers a safe harbor for U.S. companies if they adopt the EU’s ‘codes of conduct’ on a global basis. These gentle suggestions to sign up are backed with threats as subtle as Al Capone wielding a baseball bat.

• When X dropped the Code of Conduct on Disinformation in May 2023, because it does not generally use third-party fact-checkers, the EU in October opened an investigation of X’s Community Notes program. “Now,” the committee reports, “the Commission reportedly plans to fine X more than $1 billion for non-compliance with the DSA.”

 
As European censorship filters down into American speech, defensible speech – some of it banal, some of it edgy – is effectively criminalized.

• In 2023, the French National Police sprang into action when an American sarcastically responded to a mass stabbing attack: “I certainly hope this little dust-up in #Annecy doesn’t hurt this poor Syrian asylum seeker’s chance of becoming a Frenchman.”

 

• In 2024 a Polish flagger targeted a TikTok post that simply said, “electric cars are neither ecological nor an economical solution.”

 

• In 2024 a tweet that factually noted that a Syrian family in Germany is reported to have committed 110 criminal offenses was judged by the German government to be a violation of the criminal code.

The committee’s conclusion is blunt: “Taken together, the evidence is clear: the Digital Services Act requires the world’s largest social media platform to engage in censorship of core political discourse in Europe, the United States, and around the world.”
 
With the announcement of a new trade deal between the United States and the European Union, the way should now be clear for the Trump administration to take up the EU’s censorship as the next big issue in our bilateral relations.