At the recent World Economic Forum summit, former Democratic presidential candidate and Biden-Harris administration official John Kerry criticized the First Amendment's role in limiting the government's ability to censor social media. “You know there's a lot of discussion going on right now about how to rein in these organizations to ensure that there's some accountability for facts and things like that,” Kelly complained. Ta. “But, look, when people have access to just one source of information and that source is sick and, you know, disseminating misinformation with a purpose, the First Amendment, you know, , we can cancel it out of existence.”
Mr. Kelly's unguarded comments may seem surprising, but they reflect a sentiment shared by the executive class that controls much of the Western world. The unrestricted flow of information poses an existential threat to governments around the world, who are now rushing to establish sovereignty in digital spaces to maintain control.
Constitutional rights are only as strong as the will of the people who uphold them.
The era of mass democracy coincided with the rise of mass media, and this coincidence was no coincidence. As nations rapidly industrialized, vast countries with diverse regional cultures like the United States suddenly found ways to connect and unify. Technological innovations such as the train and the telegraph, followed by the telephone, radio, interstate highways, and television made it possible for information and people to travel quickly over long distances.
For the first time, the government was able to centralize economic regulation and spread propaganda effectively. States tried to take advantage of this. Although the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and the United States had different approaches, Franklin D. Roosevelt, like Hitler and Stalin, understood the importance of centralization. The 20th century became a century of scale, in which countries that lagged behind in the race for mass communication and control lost their sovereignty to those that succeeded.
In a system where political legitimacy is recognized through popular sovereignty, the ruling class must control public opinion in order to maintain power. Establishing compulsory education with a unified curriculum is a good start, but controlling a limited number of television and radio stations will effectively complete the deal. A consistent narrative across news and entertainment can steer public opinion in a desired direction. Although this method does not reach the level of top-down totalitarianism seen in the Soviet Union, it has proven to be a more resilient form of control.
Even as the number of media outlets increased, this dynamic remained largely unchanged. High operating costs kept the ability to shape public opinion in the hands of a select group of wealthy oligarchy. The political orientation and selection criteria of journalism schools ensured that those collecting, writing, and distributing news held similar views. The public has a variety of news sources and formats to choose from, but these choices often lead back to the same approved narrative.
In a media environment that seemed to offer endless options, people essentially only received one point of view. The ruling class maintained control by retaining authority over the flow of information.
The Internet has disrupted traditional soft power models. The decentralized nature of the digital world has made it difficult for a single oligarch to control information distribution. Initially, this was not a major problem because the Internet was unfamiliar, complex, and difficult to access for the average person. Tech-savvy enthusiasts may have worked on unapproved ideas on anonymous message boards, but most voters struggled just to access their email through America Online.
But as digital natives have matured and become more tech-savvy, social media has emerged as a platform where anyone can spread the word. This shift unleashed uncontrolled narratives into the political world and disrupted existing power.
The U.S. government quickly recognized the disruptive potential of the Internet. Thanks to advances in technology and sophisticated intelligence, the United States was one of the first countries to use the Internet and social media to incite revolution against rival regimes. The media shapes public behavior, and governments that rely on public opinion must control the information that people consume.
Today, every modern government understands this reality. But the United States' enduring protections for free speech make it particularly difficult for ruling elites to maintain control.
Governments around the world are competing with forces of decentralization to establish digital sovereignty. Like the Roman roads that sped movement within ancient empires but also facilitated barbarian invasions, the digital age presents both opportunities and threats. Modern governments face this challenge, but there are advantages to governments that are not dependent on popular approval. For example, China will be able to more easily assert control over its digital environment, often ensuring that all economic activity and communication takes place through a single state-mandated platform.
But Western democracies need to tread more carefully when imposing restrictions. But as we have seen in the UK, democratic governments can still wield great power. After the mass stabbings of children in the UK sparked riots, Labor Prime Minister Keir Starmer quickly imposed tough censorship measures, including jailing people who retweeted anti-immigration posts. Ta. In the United States, leaders are trying to circumvent First Amendment protections by forming “public-private partnerships” and pressuring social media companies to carry out censorship on their behalf. Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter disrupted this system and created at least one platform where information flows relatively freely.
It is important to recognize that the regime's influence extends beyond formal government institutions. The American establishment has leveraged state power, the media, and the nonprofit sector to build an industry around the fight against “misinformation and disinformation.” This censorship apparatus pushes the limits of what democratic governments can achieve through soft power, but it is not entirely successful in silencing dissent.
Constitutional rights are only as strong as the will of the people who uphold them. Although Americans remain deeply divided on most issues, the right to free speech is one of the few values this country shares. This right is increasingly under threat as states condition many citizens to view the First Amendment as “soft.” But the belief in free speech remains a strong barrier to government overreach. Figures like John Kerry see the First Amendment as a significant obstacle to their globalist ambitions of domination, and it is undeniably a right worth defending.
