It’s time for America to get out of the censorship business for good.
Over the past three years, the House of Representatives has uncovered a vast system of censorship operated in part through federal funding and coordination with federal officials, a system that a federal court has described as downright “Orwellian.”
The Biden administration has made censorship of speech targeting disinformation, misinformation or misinformation a priority, with President Joe Biden going so far as to say that companies that refuse to censor the public are “killing people.”
His administration now produced an anti-free speech record comparable to that of the Adams administration, which used the Alien Sedition Act to arrest political opponents.
Jen Easterly, head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, is a prime example of how censorship and censorship have become mainstream. The agency was created to address critical infrastructure, but Easterly has declared that its mission also includes policing “cognitive infrastructure,” which includes fighting “disinformation” — information that is “factual but taken out of context and used to mislead, harm, or manipulate.”
I have testified about the censorship system for years, during which Democrats have maintained there is no evidence of government coordination or funding, and while such evidence certainly exists, Democrats have tried to block investigations that would confirm what we already know: that government officials are targeting individuals and groups to restrict, ban, and blacklist them.
Then Elon Musk bought Twitter. The release of the Twitter files made it impossible to deny the government’s role in this censorship system, revealing agencies working with social media companies to target people who hold opposing or unwelcome opinions, as well as federal grants to support blacklisting and targeting efforts.
This includes efforts by pressured advertisers and donors to quietly cut off revenue from objectionable sites.
While companies like Facebook continue to fight to hide their collaboration with the government, the Twitter Files have pulled back the curtain to expose the system. Indeed, Democrats have all but abandoned denial and shifted to a full-on defense of censorship, even calling free speech advocates “Putin lovers” and “insurrectionist sympathizers.”
In 1800, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the only election in which free speech was a major issue for voters. That should be the case again this time. Vice President Kamala Harris is a known supporter of these censorship and blacklisting efforts. She can now defend that record and convince Americans that free speech needs to be restricted.
This debate should ideally focus on one simple legislative proposal. In my new book, I propose a range of measures to regain lost ground on free speech. One such measure would be federal legislation banning federal funding to any institution or program (government, academic institution, or corporation) that seeks to evaluate, target, censor, suppress, or take adverse action against individuals or groups based on their views in public forums or on social media.
There are easy exceptions to this ban for individuals or groups involved in criminal activity or illegal foreign interference in elections. Threatening individuals or buying and selling child pornography are actions, not speech. They are criminal acts under federal law.
There is nothing in this law that prevents the government from expressing its opinions. If Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas wants to dispute claims made about him or his agency, he can do so on the agency’s website or appeal to the media. That is the essence of free speech. What he cannot do is create a disinformation board to regulate the speech of any citizen or organization.
In previous testimony before Congress, I have warned against the use of what I call “censorship by proxy,” a technique in which government agencies indirectly engage in conduct that is directly prohibited by the First Amendment.
The new law won’t put an end to the burgeoning anti-free speech movement, or end a new market for groups making millions of dollars by silencing or throttling sites that cite opposing views, but it will erect a wall between the government and the censorship system.
It would also provide a simple and clear platform for the 2024 election. Candidates must take a side on freedom of speech. If candidates like Harris want to continue to support a government that blacklists and censors its people, they should admit it. For years, politicians have cynically denied the role of government censorship. If these politicians are “all for” censorship, they should be honest about it and allow voters to make the same choice they did in 1800.
With billions of dollars at the government’s disposal and the ability of its allies in Congress to conceal the government’s activities, censoring speech is an irresistible temptation. And we have seen this temptation quickly become an insatiable appetite for government officials who seek to silence critics rather than answer them.
Let’s stop the government from rating, blacklisting, and censoring our citizens. It’s time to pass laws that protect free speech.
Jonathan Turley Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.An Essential Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).
This op-ed is part of The Hill’s “How to Fix America” series, which explores solutions to some of the country’s most pressing problems.
