正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

STRIKING DOCUMENTARY: Free Speech Under Global Attack This short documentary reveals a concerted and global attack on free speech. Will also the Western world be conquered by authoritarian regimes with hard-hitting hate speech laws and government censorship through Big Tech? Reasonable people should fight back. PLEASE WATCH AND SHARE!... show more

Freedom Research

6,712 subscribers

80,370 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)

教育新闻政治喜剧

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

10 条评论

Krumhunger 的头像

Krumhunger1 年前

Zuckerberg's confession should only lead to lenience in sentencing, that is, life imprisonment versus the de*th penalty. He participated in the spread of misinformation that lead to many de*ths from the experimental mMRNA products.

TomThorp.Me #NoToDigitalID 的头像

TomThorp.Me #NoToDigitalID1 年前

Mirrored to Bitchute on channel "Banned Youtube Videos". SHARE THIS VIDEO FAR AND WIDE!!! #FreeSpeech #Censorship #BigTech

Youth In Asia 的头像

Youth In Asia1 年前

Dear #Democrats , How is it NOT #HateSpeech to say only #white men are responsible for racism Take your time I’ll wait…

KathieSt 的头像

KathieSt1 年前

EXCELLENT VIDEO!!!!! We have to fight to keep our First Amendment RIGHTS.

杨守样的头像

杨守样1 年前

Time is running out. This is Pandora's box opened by Americans. Greedy and selfish Americans support or condone the evil left, maliciously manipulating the world order and rules for their own benefit. They should pick up the justice they have abandoned and unite to close it.

sharon joy 的头像

sharon joy1 年前

Bill demands all western countries stop mis/disinformation now ....

Cathy Burger 的头像

Cathy Burger1 年前

@P_McCulloughMD Some scary stuff happening!

Captain Peter Quinn 的头像

Captain Peter Quinn1 年前

hahahaha

CITIZENBADE 的头像

CITIZENBADE1 年前

THE PANDEMIC IS DEMOCRAT THINKING..............

Revolution Solutions 的头像

Revolution Solutions1 年前

All speech is free speech. No matter how it hurts your feelings. The only speech that is illegal is threatening someone's life. Be offended. No one cares.

相关视频

Today the Federal Government in conjunction with the Coalition and with no resistance from One Nation passed a bill against Hate Speech. They gagged debate again and rammed the laws through with no scrutiny where we could ask questions. This is a direct attack on Free Speech. For the third parliamentary week in a row the major parties have devoted Parliament to controlling you, not serving you, by shutting you down. The Misinformation Law, the Online Safety Bill and now Hate Speech are all designed to censor people and push back on government overreach. The hate speech law is dangerous because it threatens freedom of speech by allowing the government to censor or punish individuals for expressing opinions that might be deemed offensive. Such laws are often vague and subjective, leading to potential abuse and selective enforcement. This creates a chilling effect where people fear speaking openly, stifling debate and free expression. Instead of combating hate, these laws can be weaponized to silence dissent and suppress unpopular viewpoints, ultimately undermining democratic values and individual liberties. People First stood in defence of open discourse, free speech, and the democratic principles that underpin our society. Upholding these values will foster trust and preserve the liberties that Australians hold dear. I am disappointed that One Nation did not stand with me on this issue. These laws extend to all people including children. When a motion was moved to exclude children under 14 from these laws, Malcolm Roberts voted against it. Children should not be penalised for the actions or thoughts of their parents. I challenge Malcolm and Pauline to debate me on the reasons why they support this law. It is government overreach plain and simple. There are already state laws against violence and inciting violence. Under the constitution, the States are responsible for policing crime not the Federal Government. There is no need for these laws. They will only be used to censor you. #auspol

Today the Federal Government in conjunction with the Coalition and with no resistance from One Nation passed a bill against Hate Speech. They gagged debate again and rammed the laws through with no scrutiny where we could ask questions. This is a direct attack on Free Speech. For the third parliamentary week in a row the major parties have devoted Parliament to controlling you, not serving you, by shutting you down. The Misinformation Law, the Online Safety Bill and now Hate Speech are all designed to censor people and push back on government overreach. The hate speech law is dangerous because it threatens freedom of speech by allowing the government to censor or punish individuals for expressing opinions that might be deemed offensive. Such laws are often vague and subjective, leading to potential abuse and selective enforcement. This creates a chilling effect where people fear speaking openly, stifling debate and free expression. Instead of combating hate, these laws can be weaponized to silence dissent and suppress unpopular viewpoints, ultimately undermining democratic values and individual liberties. People First stood in defence of open discourse, free speech, and the democratic principles that underpin our society. Upholding these values will foster trust and preserve the liberties that Australians hold dear. I am disappointed that One Nation did not stand with me on this issue. These laws extend to all people including children. When a motion was moved to exclude children under 14 from these laws, Malcolm Roberts voted against it. Children should not be penalised for the actions or thoughts of their parents. I challenge Malcolm and Pauline to debate me on the reasons why they support this law. It is government overreach plain and simple. There are already state laws against violence and inciting violence. Under the constitution, the States are responsible for policing crime not the Federal Government. There is no need for these laws. They will only be used to censor you. #auspol

Gerard Rennick

177,762 次观看 • 1 年前

🇪🇺MEGA INTERVIEW: CONSERVATIVE BLACKLISTS? EU’S HIDDEN MARXISTS' AGENDA AND CENSORSHIP MACHINE EXPOSED Is the EU secretly purging conservatives while pushing a radical leftist agenda? Polish politician Patryk Jaki exposes a growing blacklist against right-wing voices, revealing how the EU uses hate speech laws, Big Tech censorship, and political persecution to silence opposition. Now facing PRISON for simply liking a video on 𝕏, Patryk Jaki warns that Elon’s free speech movement is under attack—and the EU’s next move could erase conservative voices forever. 00:57 – Global Right-Wing Alliance: Can Elon & Trump stop the purge? 01:30 – Marxist Influence? Why new EU treaties reference a communist manifesto. 02:57 – Western Civilization in Peril: How the EU is erasing its own values. 06:09 – The Diversity Illusion: Free speech for the left, suppression for the right. 08:02 – The Conservative Blacklist: How non-leftists are blocked from power. 08:32 – Political Persecution: “I could go to prison for liking a post on 𝕏.” 09:48 – Jailing Right-Wing Politicians? Poland’s shocking crackdown. 12:14 – Weaponizing Hate Speech Laws: The EU’s ultimate tool for silencing dissent. 13:22 – THE NEXT MOVE: A region-wide law to censor 𝕏 and suppress free speech. 14:47 – Poland’s Fight for Freedom: A history of resisting tyranny. 16:31 – The Final Battle: Will Elon's free speech fight win—or will the EU tighten its grip?

🇪🇺MEGA INTERVIEW: CONSERVATIVE BLACKLISTS? EU’S HIDDEN MARXISTS' AGENDA AND CENSORSHIP MACHINE EXPOSED Is the EU secretly purging conservatives while pushing a radical leftist agenda? Polish politician Patryk Jaki exposes a growing blacklist against right-wing voices, revealing how the EU uses hate speech laws, Big Tech censorship, and political persecution to silence opposition. Now facing PRISON for simply liking a video on 𝕏, Patryk Jaki warns that Elon’s free speech movement is under attack—and the EU’s next move could erase conservative voices forever. 00:57 – Global Right-Wing Alliance: Can Elon & Trump stop the purge? 01:30 – Marxist Influence? Why new EU treaties reference a communist manifesto. 02:57 – Western Civilization in Peril: How the EU is erasing its own values. 06:09 – The Diversity Illusion: Free speech for the left, suppression for the right. 08:02 – The Conservative Blacklist: How non-leftists are blocked from power. 08:32 – Political Persecution: “I could go to prison for liking a post on 𝕏.” 09:48 – Jailing Right-Wing Politicians? Poland’s shocking crackdown. 12:14 – Weaponizing Hate Speech Laws: The EU’s ultimate tool for silencing dissent. 13:22 – THE NEXT MOVE: A region-wide law to censor 𝕏 and suppress free speech. 14:47 – Poland’s Fight for Freedom: A history of resisting tyranny. 16:31 – The Final Battle: Will Elon's free speech fight win—or will the EU tighten its grip?

Mario Nawfal

1,096,295 次观看 • 1 年前

It sounds like a "Black Mirror" episode: a small country announces a crackdown on hate speech to seize control over the entire Internet. Except it's not a "Black Mirror" episode. It's real life. And it's happening right now in Ireland. The so-called "Hate Speech" bill isn't what it seems. It's not a bill about protecting the Irish people from hate crimes. It's a Trojan Horse designed to control the world's Big Tech companies — X, Facebook, Google, and YouTube. This is a free speech emergency. We thought the legislation was dead. But the Irish government is using recent riots as an excuse to ram the legislation through before Christmas. THIS IS NOT A DRILL. THIS IS NOT ABOUT IRELAND. THIS IS A TOTALITARIAN EFFORT BY GLOBAL ELITES TO CENSOR ALL OF US. It's right there in black and white: "One of the key features of the Bill," write two attorneys with a leading Irish law firm, "is the provision for offences by corporate bodies." How can Big Tech companies avoid censorship? You guessed it: by agreeing to regulation of their content by the Irish government. "The current iteration of the Bill provides a defence for the corporate body to show that it took all reasonable steps and exercised due diligence to avoid the commission of the particular offence. Therefore, to establish and maintain such a defence, companies will need to have the appropriate processes and procedures in place." The Irish government is almost certainly not acting alone. As my colleagues and I have reported, the demand for censorship is coming directly from the militaries, intelligence agencies, and their front groups in the US, UK, and around the world. The intelligence communities of the Five Eyes nations of the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have been working together to censor ordinary citizens and politicians alike for disfavored speech for the last several years. There's no time to mince words. What governments are doing is against the law. They are violating the constitutions of the nations that the people elected them to uphold. Because of the high level of secrecy they are using, we can't say whether or not these are "rogue" elements within governments or whether these orders are coming from heads of state. But we do know that demands for censorship have come both directly from the US military and from heads of state of Western nations around the world. What's happening should terrify all freedom-loving people. We must fight back. We will fight back. That starts with recognizing what's going on. Please follow Free Speech Ireland Ben Scallan 🇮🇪 and other Irish free speech leaders. Please share this post and tell friends and family what's going on. Finally, please consider getting involved directly. We have created and personally contributed to an Emergency Free Speech Fund to get the word out: This isn't about "hate speech." This is about out-of-control elites within the intelligence, military, and security agencies around the world who are grotesquely abusing their power in a mad bid to take control of the Internet. If we don't stop them, this terrifying "Black Mirror" episode will become real life.

It sounds like a "Black Mirror" episode: a small country announces a crackdown on hate speech to seize control over the entire Internet. Except it's not a "Black Mirror" episode. It's real life. And it's happening right now in Ireland. The so-called "Hate Speech" bill isn't what it seems. It's not a bill about protecting the Irish people from hate crimes. It's a Trojan Horse designed to control the world's Big Tech companies — X, Facebook, Google, and YouTube. This is a free speech emergency. We thought the legislation was dead. But the Irish government is using recent riots as an excuse to ram the legislation through before Christmas. THIS IS NOT A DRILL. THIS IS NOT ABOUT IRELAND. THIS IS A TOTALITARIAN EFFORT BY GLOBAL ELITES TO CENSOR ALL OF US. It's right there in black and white: "One of the key features of the Bill," write two attorneys with a leading Irish law firm, "is the provision for offences by corporate bodies." How can Big Tech companies avoid censorship? You guessed it: by agreeing to regulation of their content by the Irish government. "The current iteration of the Bill provides a defence for the corporate body to show that it took all reasonable steps and exercised due diligence to avoid the commission of the particular offence. Therefore, to establish and maintain such a defence, companies will need to have the appropriate processes and procedures in place." The Irish government is almost certainly not acting alone. As my colleagues and I have reported, the demand for censorship is coming directly from the militaries, intelligence agencies, and their front groups in the US, UK, and around the world. The intelligence communities of the Five Eyes nations of the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have been working together to censor ordinary citizens and politicians alike for disfavored speech for the last several years. There's no time to mince words. What governments are doing is against the law. They are violating the constitutions of the nations that the people elected them to uphold. Because of the high level of secrecy they are using, we can't say whether or not these are "rogue" elements within governments or whether these orders are coming from heads of state. But we do know that demands for censorship have come both directly from the US military and from heads of state of Western nations around the world. What's happening should terrify all freedom-loving people. We must fight back. We will fight back. That starts with recognizing what's going on. Please follow Free Speech Ireland Ben Scallan 🇮🇪 and other Irish free speech leaders. Please share this post and tell friends and family what's going on. Finally, please consider getting involved directly. We have created and personally contributed to an Emergency Free Speech Fund to get the word out: This isn't about "hate speech." This is about out-of-control elites within the intelligence, military, and security agencies around the world who are grotesquely abusing their power in a mad bid to take control of the Internet. If we don't stop them, this terrifying "Black Mirror" episode will become real life.

Michael Shellenberger

4,600,279 次观看 • 2 年前

The UK Government Just Lost Its War on Your Privacy. Here's How America Stopped It. A chilling precedent was just set—and then defeated. The UK government, under its authoritarian Online Safety Act, made an unprecedented global power grab. They demanded Apple create a "backdoor" to break into the encrypted data of ANY user, ANYWHERE in the world. iCloud photos, messages, notes—nothing would be safe. They wanted the keys to the kingdom. Apple's response? They refused to compromise their users' security and instead REMOVED Advanced Data Protection entirely for UK citizens. They chose to deny a service rather than build a tool for tyranny. This is how they always operate: they sell these draconian measures by targeting "pedophiles" and "criminals." But in reality, who do they arrest? People criticizing the government. People questioning protests. People sharing "wrong" memes. It was never about safety; it was about control. But here's the update that proves the global stakes of this fight: The UK has BACKED DOWN. Why? Because of direct intervention from the United States. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, alongside the President and VP, engaged in high-level talks to protect AMERICAN citizens from this foreign overreach. The result? The UK has DROPPED its mandate. For now, our private data remains private. Our constitutional rights were defended on the world stage. This is a stark reminder: ➤ The fight for free speech and privacy is now global. Digital borders are meaningless to authoritarians. ➤ Your security was protected because a company (Apple) said NO and a government (the U.S.) had the will to stand up for its principles. ➤ The UK's Online Safety Act is still active, creating a digital dark age for British citizens. Platforms like Gab have already completely BLOCKED all UK users to protect them from government coercion and jail time for "hate speech." The question every American must ask: Would this have happened under an administration that openly advocates for censoring "misinformation" and monitoring online speech? The UK's best hope, according to free speech advocates there, now lies with the Trump administration. The beacon of freedom is still burning, but it is under constant attack. This victory is critical, but the war for the soul of the internet is far from over.

The UK Government Just Lost Its War on Your Privacy. Here's How America Stopped It. A chilling precedent was just set—and then defeated. The UK government, under its authoritarian Online Safety Act, made an unprecedented global power grab. They demanded Apple create a "backdoor" to break into the encrypted data of ANY user, ANYWHERE in the world. iCloud photos, messages, notes—nothing would be safe. They wanted the keys to the kingdom. Apple's response? They refused to compromise their users' security and instead REMOVED Advanced Data Protection entirely for UK citizens. They chose to deny a service rather than build a tool for tyranny. This is how they always operate: they sell these draconian measures by targeting "pedophiles" and "criminals." But in reality, who do they arrest? People criticizing the government. People questioning protests. People sharing "wrong" memes. It was never about safety; it was about control. But here's the update that proves the global stakes of this fight: The UK has BACKED DOWN. Why? Because of direct intervention from the United States. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, alongside the President and VP, engaged in high-level talks to protect AMERICAN citizens from this foreign overreach. The result? The UK has DROPPED its mandate. For now, our private data remains private. Our constitutional rights were defended on the world stage. This is a stark reminder: ➤ The fight for free speech and privacy is now global. Digital borders are meaningless to authoritarians. ➤ Your security was protected because a company (Apple) said NO and a government (the U.S.) had the will to stand up for its principles. ➤ The UK's Online Safety Act is still active, creating a digital dark age for British citizens. Platforms like Gab have already completely BLOCKED all UK users to protect them from government coercion and jail time for "hate speech." The question every American must ask: Would this have happened under an administration that openly advocates for censoring "misinformation" and monitoring online speech? The UK's best hope, according to free speech advocates there, now lies with the Trump administration. The beacon of freedom is still burning, but it is under constant attack. This victory is critical, but the war for the soul of the internet is far from over.

Camus

12,945 次观看 • 11 个月前

“You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater!” How many times have you heard advocates of censorship say that? Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz repeated it last night in his debate with Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance. In so doing, Walz spread misinformation. It’s not illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater. That’s a myth. The expression refers to a 1919 Supreme Court opinion superseded by the 1969 Brandenberg v. Ohio decision. Tim Walz had previously claimed that spreading misinformation about elections was illegal. It’s not. How could it be? If the government censored disfavored views on elections, how would we ever know if our elections were truly free and fair? I debunked Walz’s claim on X last night, and it’s happily now been viewed over 10 million times. As satisfying as that is, it’s still not enough. If Walz and Harris get elected, they may attempt to ramp up the censorship we have been documenting and denouncing. As such, all of us who care about freedom of speech must push ourselves to find ways to persuade our fellow citizens of the benefits of free speech over censorship. Now, you might not feel like making the case for free speech personally to friends and family, and you certainly don’t need to. But many people have emailed me over the last three years expressing dismay at how many Democrats they know are in favor of free speech. I share their dismay. Support among Democrats for government censorship of online misinformation grew from 40% to 70% between 2018 and 2023. It was shocking to testify before Congress on free speech issues last year only to discover how many Democrats wanted more censorship. And so I made this video for people looking for a way to talk to friends and family about censorship, one of the greatest threats to our democracy. After working on free speech issues three years ago, I realized that I had taken my support for free speech for granted. I had forgotten that my parents and others had taught me the importance of free speech. It wasn’t something that came naturally. I still remember when my father explained to me why the Supreme Court let Nazis march through a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors. I remember being shocked by this and thinking such a thing lacked compassion. Only gradually, over several years, I saw the wisdom of free speech, not simply in allowing fundamental human expression but also as the best response to lies and hatred. That raises a few questions: Will the same approach that worked with me work with people today? Who needs to be persuaded, exactly? And what appears to move them? Over the last few years my colleagues and I have read through the public opinion research, interviewed, and spoken with hundreds of people in the West. One significant finding is that the people in favor of censorship today tend to be more female than male and more on the political Left than Right. And I’m happy to say that I finally feel confident in explaining what moves them to favor free speech and more opposed to censorship. The research on support for free speech is mixed. Initially, older adults were more inclined to favor restrictions, but polling by the Pew Research Center shows that this gap has closed. Similarly, a 2022 Knight Foundation survey indicated that younger people, while valuing free speech highly, have become more supportive of limiting online harmful content. However, a recent 2024 survey of Australians found that younger people were more supportive of free speech and against censorship than older people. The main reason women and people on the left are more supportive of censorship appears to be to reduce harm. This is consistent with the research by psychologists Jonathan Haidt and others that where conservatives tend to hold a broader set of traditional values, progressives have reduced the number of core values they hold strongly to just one: compassion. Earlier research found people on the Left also hold the value of freedom, but it is notably selective, as rising Democratic support for censorship shows. “Women are more supportive of illegalizing insults of immigrants, homosexualindividuals, transgender individuals, the police, African Americans, Hispanics, Muslims, Jewish people, and Christians, and are more supportive of banning sexually explicit public statements and flag burning,” noted psychologist Cory Clark in Psychology Today in 2021. “One likely reason for this pattern is that women are more averse to interpersonal harm and have a relatively stronger concern for protecting others.” So, to move people to support free speech, we should first appeal to compassion since it’s the core value of Democrats, progressives, liberals, and people on the Left today. After you anchor people in compassion, you can make the intellectual case for why free speech is more compassionate than censorship. This approach is also critical to avoid triggering cognitive dissonance, which is the discomfort individuals feel when they realize they hold contradictory beliefs or are confronted with information that challenges their existing views. If people feel attacked or cornered, they often respond by doubling down on their beliefs to reduce this discomfort, a phenomenon known as "motivated reasoning" or "defensive processing." Avoiding accusatory language, empathetic listening, and framing the conversation around shared values can prevent defensive responses and encourage reflection. “If you must present evidence threatening to the audience’s worldview,” wrote a team of psychologists in 2016, “you may be able to reduce the worldview backfire effect by presenting your content in a worldview-affirming manner.” Readers of Public may recall what I discovered when interviewing people on the streets of Dublin, Ireland, about free speech. Simply slowing people down and forcing them to engage in “slow thinking” rather than “fast thinking” made them more receptive to free speech arguments. Slowing people down allows them to relax, remember the past, and imagine potential futures. And simply asking questions demonstrates respect and triggers a feeling of obligation by most people to offer truthful answers. How you approach the topic will depend on whether you’re talking with a friend or relative or moderating a presidential debate, but it should include affirming shared values. You might say, “There’s been a lot of debate about censorship and misinformation. Most of us, myself included, care a lot about protecting vulnerable people and countering bad information while protecting people’s right to free speech. I’m curious how you think about these issues, and I wondered if I could ask you how you think about them.” Assuming you get permission to go further, here are the three key questions I would recommend... Please subscribe now to support free speech, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!

“You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater!” How many times have you heard advocates of censorship say that? Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz repeated it last night in his debate with Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance. In so doing, Walz spread misinformation. It’s not illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater. That’s a myth. The expression refers to a 1919 Supreme Court opinion superseded by the 1969 Brandenberg v. Ohio decision. Tim Walz had previously claimed that spreading misinformation about elections was illegal. It’s not. How could it be? If the government censored disfavored views on elections, how would we ever know if our elections were truly free and fair? I debunked Walz’s claim on X last night, and it’s happily now been viewed over 10 million times. As satisfying as that is, it’s still not enough. If Walz and Harris get elected, they may attempt to ramp up the censorship we have been documenting and denouncing. As such, all of us who care about freedom of speech must push ourselves to find ways to persuade our fellow citizens of the benefits of free speech over censorship. Now, you might not feel like making the case for free speech personally to friends and family, and you certainly don’t need to. But many people have emailed me over the last three years expressing dismay at how many Democrats they know are in favor of free speech. I share their dismay. Support among Democrats for government censorship of online misinformation grew from 40% to 70% between 2018 and 2023. It was shocking to testify before Congress on free speech issues last year only to discover how many Democrats wanted more censorship. And so I made this video for people looking for a way to talk to friends and family about censorship, one of the greatest threats to our democracy. After working on free speech issues three years ago, I realized that I had taken my support for free speech for granted. I had forgotten that my parents and others had taught me the importance of free speech. It wasn’t something that came naturally. I still remember when my father explained to me why the Supreme Court let Nazis march through a neighborhood of Holocaust survivors. I remember being shocked by this and thinking such a thing lacked compassion. Only gradually, over several years, I saw the wisdom of free speech, not simply in allowing fundamental human expression but also as the best response to lies and hatred. That raises a few questions: Will the same approach that worked with me work with people today? Who needs to be persuaded, exactly? And what appears to move them? Over the last few years my colleagues and I have read through the public opinion research, interviewed, and spoken with hundreds of people in the West. One significant finding is that the people in favor of censorship today tend to be more female than male and more on the political Left than Right. And I’m happy to say that I finally feel confident in explaining what moves them to favor free speech and more opposed to censorship. The research on support for free speech is mixed. Initially, older adults were more inclined to favor restrictions, but polling by the Pew Research Center shows that this gap has closed. Similarly, a 2022 Knight Foundation survey indicated that younger people, while valuing free speech highly, have become more supportive of limiting online harmful content. However, a recent 2024 survey of Australians found that younger people were more supportive of free speech and against censorship than older people. The main reason women and people on the left are more supportive of censorship appears to be to reduce harm. This is consistent with the research by psychologists Jonathan Haidt and others that where conservatives tend to hold a broader set of traditional values, progressives have reduced the number of core values they hold strongly to just one: compassion. Earlier research found people on the Left also hold the value of freedom, but it is notably selective, as rising Democratic support for censorship shows. “Women are more supportive of illegalizing insults of immigrants, homosexualindividuals, transgender individuals, the police, African Americans, Hispanics, Muslims, Jewish people, and Christians, and are more supportive of banning sexually explicit public statements and flag burning,” noted psychologist Cory Clark in Psychology Today in 2021. “One likely reason for this pattern is that women are more averse to interpersonal harm and have a relatively stronger concern for protecting others.” So, to move people to support free speech, we should first appeal to compassion since it’s the core value of Democrats, progressives, liberals, and people on the Left today. After you anchor people in compassion, you can make the intellectual case for why free speech is more compassionate than censorship. This approach is also critical to avoid triggering cognitive dissonance, which is the discomfort individuals feel when they realize they hold contradictory beliefs or are confronted with information that challenges their existing views. If people feel attacked or cornered, they often respond by doubling down on their beliefs to reduce this discomfort, a phenomenon known as "motivated reasoning" or "defensive processing." Avoiding accusatory language, empathetic listening, and framing the conversation around shared values can prevent defensive responses and encourage reflection. “If you must present evidence threatening to the audience’s worldview,” wrote a team of psychologists in 2016, “you may be able to reduce the worldview backfire effect by presenting your content in a worldview-affirming manner.” Readers of Public may recall what I discovered when interviewing people on the streets of Dublin, Ireland, about free speech. Simply slowing people down and forcing them to engage in “slow thinking” rather than “fast thinking” made them more receptive to free speech arguments. Slowing people down allows them to relax, remember the past, and imagine potential futures. And simply asking questions demonstrates respect and triggers a feeling of obligation by most people to offer truthful answers. How you approach the topic will depend on whether you’re talking with a friend or relative or moderating a presidential debate, but it should include affirming shared values. You might say, “There’s been a lot of debate about censorship and misinformation. Most of us, myself included, care a lot about protecting vulnerable people and countering bad information while protecting people’s right to free speech. I’m curious how you think about these issues, and I wondered if I could ask you how you think about them.” Assuming you get permission to go further, here are the three key questions I would recommend... Please subscribe now to support free speech, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!

Michael Shellenberger

10,563,804 次观看 • 1 年前

NEW DOCUMENTARY: "The Censorship Files" How much would you pay to protect your freedom? by Leighton 明 Woodhouse & Michael Shellenberger One year ago, we and other journalists gained access to the Twitter Files. What we discovered shocked us. Not only were highly partisan and ideological individuals within Twitter censoring people for holding views with which they disagreed, they were often doing so on behalf of US government officials and contractors with the FBI, CIA, and Department of Homeland Security. And so, one year later, we are happy to announce a new, full-length documentary film, “The Censorship Files.” You can see the trailer above. The film, made by Leighton Woodhouse and Jonah Markowitz, will bring you inside the Twitter Files and the race to the Supreme Court, which will hear the Missouri v. Biden censorship case early next year. Today we must ask you a personal question: what price would you put on your freedom? Many of us tell ourselves that freedom is priceless: we would sacrifice everything, die even, to protect our freedoms and keep America a free nation. Even if we weren’t willing to die or go to prison for our nation, we would make a significant financial investment to protect it. We are asking you to make a far more modest payment: less than $9/month, or about half the cost of a Netflix subscription. A subscription to Public is an investment in our investigative reporting, our free speech campaigning, and the final production and distribution of “The Censorship Files,” a film that will change how Americans think about free speech. We believe $9/month is a tiny investment to pay to ensure that, in the future, you can read what you want to read, watch the programs you want to watch, and voice your opinions. “The Censorship Files” will be a landmark film in educating younger Americans, who are more censorial than their elders, about America’s remarkable history of strong free speech protections. They will learn about the Civil Rights movement, the right of the New York Times to publish “the Pentagon Papers,” and the right even of pro-Nazi and pro-terrorism activists to march freely through America’s streets. “The Censorship Files” will reveal the origins and scope of the Censorship Industrial Complex, its leaders and architects, and its victims of censorship, from moms sharing stories about the Covid vaccine’s side effects on their children to two of the world’s foremost experts on the Covid response, Harvard’s Martin Kulldorff and Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya. Finally, we will use “The Censorship Files” to build a new free speech movement in America, city by city, campus by campus, from the grassroots up. Because if we can’t persuade America’s youth to support free speech, then the First Amendment is just some words on a piece of paper. We can’t save the First Amendment without you. We can’t even finish “The Censorship Files” without you. This is not complicated. We need more paid subscribers. We need more than 10% of our subscribers to contribute thirty cents daily. If we could get 30% of our free subscribers to support our movement, I believe that we would have a fighting chance to save our first freedom and the other pillars of democratic civilization along with it. One year ago, we didn’t even know we lived in a heavily censored society. Today, we have ripped back the veil of the Censorship Industrial Complex and are on the cusp of defunding and dismantling it. Such a process will take years but won’t take a decade. It may even happen much more quickly than that, depending on the actions of the Supreme Court and Congress. What’s certain is that we can’t do it without our paid subscribers — and we don’t want to do it without our unpaid ones. We promise that, in the future, you’ll be grateful you funded the fight for our first freedom.

NEW DOCUMENTARY: "The Censorship Files" How much would you pay to protect your freedom? by Leighton 明 Woodhouse & Michael Shellenberger One year ago, we and other journalists gained access to the Twitter Files. What we discovered shocked us. Not only were highly partisan and ideological individuals within Twitter censoring people for holding views with which they disagreed, they were often doing so on behalf of US government officials and contractors with the FBI, CIA, and Department of Homeland Security. And so, one year later, we are happy to announce a new, full-length documentary film, “The Censorship Files.” You can see the trailer above. The film, made by Leighton Woodhouse and Jonah Markowitz, will bring you inside the Twitter Files and the race to the Supreme Court, which will hear the Missouri v. Biden censorship case early next year. Today we must ask you a personal question: what price would you put on your freedom? Many of us tell ourselves that freedom is priceless: we would sacrifice everything, die even, to protect our freedoms and keep America a free nation. Even if we weren’t willing to die or go to prison for our nation, we would make a significant financial investment to protect it. We are asking you to make a far more modest payment: less than $9/month, or about half the cost of a Netflix subscription. A subscription to Public is an investment in our investigative reporting, our free speech campaigning, and the final production and distribution of “The Censorship Files,” a film that will change how Americans think about free speech. We believe $9/month is a tiny investment to pay to ensure that, in the future, you can read what you want to read, watch the programs you want to watch, and voice your opinions. “The Censorship Files” will be a landmark film in educating younger Americans, who are more censorial than their elders, about America’s remarkable history of strong free speech protections. They will learn about the Civil Rights movement, the right of the New York Times to publish “the Pentagon Papers,” and the right even of pro-Nazi and pro-terrorism activists to march freely through America’s streets. “The Censorship Files” will reveal the origins and scope of the Censorship Industrial Complex, its leaders and architects, and its victims of censorship, from moms sharing stories about the Covid vaccine’s side effects on their children to two of the world’s foremost experts on the Covid response, Harvard’s Martin Kulldorff and Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya. Finally, we will use “The Censorship Files” to build a new free speech movement in America, city by city, campus by campus, from the grassroots up. Because if we can’t persuade America’s youth to support free speech, then the First Amendment is just some words on a piece of paper. We can’t save the First Amendment without you. We can’t even finish “The Censorship Files” without you. This is not complicated. We need more paid subscribers. We need more than 10% of our subscribers to contribute thirty cents daily. If we could get 30% of our free subscribers to support our movement, I believe that we would have a fighting chance to save our first freedom and the other pillars of democratic civilization along with it. One year ago, we didn’t even know we lived in a heavily censored society. Today, we have ripped back the veil of the Censorship Industrial Complex and are on the cusp of defunding and dismantling it. Such a process will take years but won’t take a decade. It may even happen much more quickly than that, depending on the actions of the Supreme Court and Congress. What’s certain is that we can’t do it without our paid subscribers — and we don’t want to do it without our unpaid ones. We promise that, in the future, you’ll be grateful you funded the fight for our first freedom.

Michael Shellenberger

1,032,836 次观看 • 2 年前

More censorship is coming! The Digital Duty of Care Act is on the government's agenda! We're still in this war over free speech and online privacy. Even after the under-16 social media ban kicked in last month, the government's pushing ahead with the Digital Duty of Care under the Online Safety Act. Presented as "protecting users from harm," this is just another power grab that could crush free expression and ramp up surveillance. Here's why we need to fight this tooth and nail: 1. Massive Threat to Free Speech: Censorship on Steroids: Platforms will be forced to preemptively scrub anything that might be seen as "harmful" to dodge fines or lawsuits. That's goodbye to edgy debates, memes, or any opinion that doesn't toe the official line. Dissent? Labeled "misinfo" and gone. Silencing the Little Guy: Broad "harm" definitions will hit independent voices hardest, think podcasters, citizen journalists, or anyone challenging big government or corporations. This isn't safety; it's enforced echo chambers. 2. Privacy Nightmare: Big Brother Boost: To comply, companies will track your every click, post, and like even more than they do now. Expect deeper data mining and logs to prove they're "preventing harm." Your private conversations? Not any more. Government Backdoor: With eSafety Commissioner calling shots, this opens the door to state spying under "duty of care." We've seen it with the social media ban challenges, next up, your data handed over on demand. 3. Killing Innovation and Economy: Startup Stranglehold: Small platforms can't afford the compliance army needed for constant risk assessments. Big Tech wins, diversity dies, and we get a bland, controlled internet. Aussie Isolation: Global companies might bail or limit services here, like threats during the ban rollout. Higher costs, fewer options, all in the name of "safety." 4. Vague Laws, Easy Abuse: Fuzzy Rules: "Foreseeable harm"? Who decides? Arbitrary enforcement will chill speech as platforms play it safe to avoid legal headaches. Political Weapon: History shows these powers get twisted to target critics. Remember the misinformation bills? This is that on steroids. Why We Must Abolish This Before It Passes: The Digital Duty of Care isn't about protection, it's control. With the under-16 ban already facing court battles into 2026, we can't let this slide. Instead: A. Boost Education: Teach digital smarts and critical thinking in schools, not top-down censorship. B. Demand Transparency: Platforms should share moderation stats voluntarily, like X's Community Notes, without government mandates. C. Enforce Real Laws: Tackle actual crimes like child exploitation with existing tools, not blanket overreach. Is time to stand up and be heard! Contact your MPs, spread the word, and join the fight for freedom. Australia deserves a free digital space, not a nanny state lockdown. The battle continues, join me in this fight! #FreeSpeech #NoCensorship #DigitalDutyOfCare #Australia

More censorship is coming! The Digital Duty of Care Act is on the government's agenda! We're still in this war over free speech and online privacy. Even after the under-16 social media ban kicked in last month, the government's pushing ahead with the Digital Duty of Care under the Online Safety Act. Presented as "protecting users from harm," this is just another power grab that could crush free expression and ramp up surveillance. Here's why we need to fight this tooth and nail: 1. Massive Threat to Free Speech: Censorship on Steroids: Platforms will be forced to preemptively scrub anything that might be seen as "harmful" to dodge fines or lawsuits. That's goodbye to edgy debates, memes, or any opinion that doesn't toe the official line. Dissent? Labeled "misinfo" and gone. Silencing the Little Guy: Broad "harm" definitions will hit independent voices hardest, think podcasters, citizen journalists, or anyone challenging big government or corporations. This isn't safety; it's enforced echo chambers. 2. Privacy Nightmare: Big Brother Boost: To comply, companies will track your every click, post, and like even more than they do now. Expect deeper data mining and logs to prove they're "preventing harm." Your private conversations? Not any more. Government Backdoor: With eSafety Commissioner calling shots, this opens the door to state spying under "duty of care." We've seen it with the social media ban challenges, next up, your data handed over on demand. 3. Killing Innovation and Economy: Startup Stranglehold: Small platforms can't afford the compliance army needed for constant risk assessments. Big Tech wins, diversity dies, and we get a bland, controlled internet. Aussie Isolation: Global companies might bail or limit services here, like threats during the ban rollout. Higher costs, fewer options, all in the name of "safety." 4. Vague Laws, Easy Abuse: Fuzzy Rules: "Foreseeable harm"? Who decides? Arbitrary enforcement will chill speech as platforms play it safe to avoid legal headaches. Political Weapon: History shows these powers get twisted to target critics. Remember the misinformation bills? This is that on steroids. Why We Must Abolish This Before It Passes: The Digital Duty of Care isn't about protection, it's control. With the under-16 ban already facing court battles into 2026, we can't let this slide. Instead: A. Boost Education: Teach digital smarts and critical thinking in schools, not top-down censorship. B. Demand Transparency: Platforms should share moderation stats voluntarily, like X's Community Notes, without government mandates. C. Enforce Real Laws: Tackle actual crimes like child exploitation with existing tools, not blanket overreach. Is time to stand up and be heard! Contact your MPs, spread the word, and join the fight for freedom. Australia deserves a free digital space, not a nanny state lockdown. The battle continues, join me in this fight! #FreeSpeech #NoCensorship #DigitalDutyOfCare #Australia

The People's King Elvis

14,629 次观看 • 7 个月前

Kamala Harris, Tim Walz, And Barack Obama Back Brazil-Style Censorship Next Democratic president and vice president may implement sweeping plan for "fighting misinformation" and "hate speech" Brazil’s banning and blocking of the social media platform X is far more extreme than anything being proposed in the United States, social media regulation experts are telling the New York Times, Washington Post, and other publications. One implication is that we need not be concerned that Brazil-style censorship will ever happen in the US. In fact, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and vice presidential candidate Tim Walz both repeatedly endorsed the three main censorship tactics used by the Brazilian government: censorship of election “misinformation,” de-platforming political opponents, and cross-platform bans, which ban a person not just from one social media platform but from many or even all of them. Harris repeatedly called for the US government to deplatform then-President Donald Trump. In an October 2019 debate, Harris said, “His Twitter account should be shut down.” After the debate she said, “You can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply. There has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites…They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation. And that has to stop.” When Walz in 2022 called for censorship of election misinformation, he claimed, falsely, that the First Amendment does not protect hate speech and misinformation. “There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech,” said Walz on MSNBC, “and especially around our democracy.” In fact, the US Supreme Court has consistently ruled that hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, or deliberate lying are allowed in most circumstances. First Amendment scholar Jeff Koseff last year published a book, Liar In A Crowded Theater, documenting this history. It’s true that Harris and Walz have not recently repeated their calls for government censorship and that what they called for was not as extreme as what Brazil is doing. They made their statements two to five years ago. And neither Harris nor Walz called for completely banning and blocking social media platforms as the Brazilian government did. But none of that takes away from the severity of their calls for industry-wide, cross-platform deplatforming through government regulation of social media platforms. Before the Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes banned and blocked X in Brazil, he sought cross-platform deplatforming of opposition politicians and independent journalists. Indeed, it was precisely his demands for such cross-platform bans that X owner Elon Musk rejected, which led to Moraes’ decision to block the whole platform. For years, Democrats have sought to regulate social media platforms both directly through the executive branch and through Congress. In 2021 and 2022, Democrats in the House and Senate introduced the “Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act,” “Algorithmic Justice Act,” and the “Social Media NUDGE Act” to require social media companies to censor content that could cause “emotional injury,” ban algorithms that result in “discrimination or similar harms,” and impose “limits on account creation and content sharing” of disfavored individuals and their views. While some of these bills have good goals, including protecting privacy, preventing harassment, and increasing transparency, they all give the government far too much power to censor disfavored speech. In the spring of 2022, the Biden Administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a “Disinformation Governance Board.” One week prior, former President Barack Obama advocated for sweeping US government censorship of social media platforms in a major speech at Stanford University, which appeared timed to support the Disinformation Governance Board and advocate for Congress to regulate social media content for disfavored content. Obama’s speech gave a clear picture of the censorship a Harris-Walz administration may impose. He claimed that “social media platforms tend not to wanna do anything,” and “a regulatory structure, a smart one, needs to be in place” for “slowing the spread of harmful content.” Obama stressed that government “regulation has to be part of the answer.” In his speech, Obama praised the aggressive social censorship that the European Union is currently pursuing through its Digital Services Act (DSA). For decades, the Democrats were the party of free speech in the United States. What changed? How did Harris, Walz, Obama, and dozens of Democratic Senators and members of Congress come to support Brazil-style censorship? Please subscribe now to support Public's investigative reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!

Kamala Harris, Tim Walz, And Barack Obama Back Brazil-Style Censorship Next Democratic president and vice president may implement sweeping plan for "fighting misinformation" and "hate speech" Brazil’s banning and blocking of the social media platform X is far more extreme than anything being proposed in the United States, social media regulation experts are telling the New York Times, Washington Post, and other publications. One implication is that we need not be concerned that Brazil-style censorship will ever happen in the US. In fact, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and vice presidential candidate Tim Walz both repeatedly endorsed the three main censorship tactics used by the Brazilian government: censorship of election “misinformation,” de-platforming political opponents, and cross-platform bans, which ban a person not just from one social media platform but from many or even all of them. Harris repeatedly called for the US government to deplatform then-President Donald Trump. In an October 2019 debate, Harris said, “His Twitter account should be shut down.” After the debate she said, “You can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply. There has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites…They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation. And that has to stop.” When Walz in 2022 called for censorship of election misinformation, he claimed, falsely, that the First Amendment does not protect hate speech and misinformation. “There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech,” said Walz on MSNBC, “and especially around our democracy.” In fact, the US Supreme Court has consistently ruled that hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, or deliberate lying are allowed in most circumstances. First Amendment scholar Jeff Koseff last year published a book, Liar In A Crowded Theater, documenting this history. It’s true that Harris and Walz have not recently repeated their calls for government censorship and that what they called for was not as extreme as what Brazil is doing. They made their statements two to five years ago. And neither Harris nor Walz called for completely banning and blocking social media platforms as the Brazilian government did. But none of that takes away from the severity of their calls for industry-wide, cross-platform deplatforming through government regulation of social media platforms. Before the Brazilian Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes banned and blocked X in Brazil, he sought cross-platform deplatforming of opposition politicians and independent journalists. Indeed, it was precisely his demands for such cross-platform bans that X owner Elon Musk rejected, which led to Moraes’ decision to block the whole platform. For years, Democrats have sought to regulate social media platforms both directly through the executive branch and through Congress. In 2021 and 2022, Democrats in the House and Senate introduced the “Justice Against Malicious Algorithms Act,” “Algorithmic Justice Act,” and the “Social Media NUDGE Act” to require social media companies to censor content that could cause “emotional injury,” ban algorithms that result in “discrimination or similar harms,” and impose “limits on account creation and content sharing” of disfavored individuals and their views. While some of these bills have good goals, including protecting privacy, preventing harassment, and increasing transparency, they all give the government far too much power to censor disfavored speech. In the spring of 2022, the Biden Administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a “Disinformation Governance Board.” One week prior, former President Barack Obama advocated for sweeping US government censorship of social media platforms in a major speech at Stanford University, which appeared timed to support the Disinformation Governance Board and advocate for Congress to regulate social media content for disfavored content. Obama’s speech gave a clear picture of the censorship a Harris-Walz administration may impose. He claimed that “social media platforms tend not to wanna do anything,” and “a regulatory structure, a smart one, needs to be in place” for “slowing the spread of harmful content.” Obama stressed that government “regulation has to be part of the answer.” In his speech, Obama praised the aggressive social censorship that the European Union is currently pursuing through its Digital Services Act (DSA). For decades, the Democrats were the party of free speech in the United States. What changed? How did Harris, Walz, Obama, and dozens of Democratic Senators and members of Congress come to support Brazil-style censorship? Please subscribe now to support Public's investigative reporting, read the rest of the article, and watch the rest of the video!

Michael Shellenberger

131,422 次观看 • 1 年前

The totalitarianism we warned of is happening. The European Union is at this moment forcing big tech companies to secretly engage in mass censorship. Google and Facebook are, apparently, going along with it. Only Elon Musk’s X, among the major platforms, is resisting. A few hours ago, Musk said, “The European Commission offered 𝕏 an illegal secret deal: if we quietly censored speech without telling anyone, they would not fine us. The other platforms accepted that deal. 𝕏 did not.” And so now, the EU is preparing to punish X with massive fines — up to 6% of total global revenue. I can't imagine a more egregious form of foreign interference in our domestic affairs than foreign governments demanding mass secret censorship for ideological and political purposes. Most terrifying is the apparently direct involvement of government intelligence and security agencies, and their intermediaries, in demanding censorship. This is all happening at the very moment that the same governments, including our own, warn of Russian disinformation through spam accounts that hardly anybody ever sees. Don’t be fooled by what is happening. Governments and former intelligence officials in Europe, Australia, Israel, Brazil, and Ukraine and other nations are not only demanding censorship but also often spreading their own disinformation. For example, the EU claims that there is more false information on X than on other platforms, and more censorship would reduce it. This is false. Only X has the open-source Community Notes system, which allows for real-time corrections to false information. A recent study in JAMA, the Journal of American Medicine, found that 97.5% of the Community Notes were entirely accurate, 2%, partially accurate, and 0.5%, inaccurate. It’s not perfect. I myself sometimes disagree with them. And of course, science is never standing still, so what appears accurate today might not be accurate in the future. However, X’s Community Notes uses more speech, not censorship, to provide context to controversial content. You can still agree or disagree with the content, even with a Community Note attached. What the EU wants is for its committees of experts, not Community Notes, to secretly decide what we can read and say online. This is unethical and unconstitutional. Another key part of the EU’s disinformation is that “researchers” should have access to X’s internal data, which Musk cut off when he bought Twitter. But those people who want the data aren’t researchers. They’re censorship activists, many of whom have deep relationships with governments in general and intelligence agencies in particular. If the EU succeeds in censoring X, Facebook, Google, and every other major Internet platform, then there is no free speech. There is only government-controlled speech. Many people rightly worry about the implications of a single man, Elon Musk, being all that stands between us and foreign governments’ totalitarian censorship plans. I worry about that, too. Our speech is inalienable. It is not something governments give to us. We need to fight back. While we should be grateful to Musk for standing up to the totalitarians in Europe, Brazil, and Australia, we must build a citizen’s movement to fight back. There’s three things you can do. First, share this video to raise the alarm. Second, add your email to our list here, so we can involve you in the future. And, third, consider making a donation to build the free speech movement and urge Congress and other social media companies to stand up for free speech against foreign interference.

The totalitarianism we warned of is happening. The European Union is at this moment forcing big tech companies to secretly engage in mass censorship. Google and Facebook are, apparently, going along with it. Only Elon Musk’s X, among the major platforms, is resisting. A few hours ago, Musk said, “The European Commission offered 𝕏 an illegal secret deal: if we quietly censored speech without telling anyone, they would not fine us. The other platforms accepted that deal. 𝕏 did not.” And so now, the EU is preparing to punish X with massive fines — up to 6% of total global revenue. I can't imagine a more egregious form of foreign interference in our domestic affairs than foreign governments demanding mass secret censorship for ideological and political purposes. Most terrifying is the apparently direct involvement of government intelligence and security agencies, and their intermediaries, in demanding censorship. This is all happening at the very moment that the same governments, including our own, warn of Russian disinformation through spam accounts that hardly anybody ever sees. Don’t be fooled by what is happening. Governments and former intelligence officials in Europe, Australia, Israel, Brazil, and Ukraine and other nations are not only demanding censorship but also often spreading their own disinformation. For example, the EU claims that there is more false information on X than on other platforms, and more censorship would reduce it. This is false. Only X has the open-source Community Notes system, which allows for real-time corrections to false information. A recent study in JAMA, the Journal of American Medicine, found that 97.5% of the Community Notes were entirely accurate, 2%, partially accurate, and 0.5%, inaccurate. It’s not perfect. I myself sometimes disagree with them. And of course, science is never standing still, so what appears accurate today might not be accurate in the future. However, X’s Community Notes uses more speech, not censorship, to provide context to controversial content. You can still agree or disagree with the content, even with a Community Note attached. What the EU wants is for its committees of experts, not Community Notes, to secretly decide what we can read and say online. This is unethical and unconstitutional. Another key part of the EU’s disinformation is that “researchers” should have access to X’s internal data, which Musk cut off when he bought Twitter. But those people who want the data aren’t researchers. They’re censorship activists, many of whom have deep relationships with governments in general and intelligence agencies in particular. If the EU succeeds in censoring X, Facebook, Google, and every other major Internet platform, then there is no free speech. There is only government-controlled speech. Many people rightly worry about the implications of a single man, Elon Musk, being all that stands between us and foreign governments’ totalitarian censorship plans. I worry about that, too. Our speech is inalienable. It is not something governments give to us. We need to fight back. While we should be grateful to Musk for standing up to the totalitarians in Europe, Brazil, and Australia, we must build a citizen’s movement to fight back. There’s three things you can do. First, share this video to raise the alarm. Second, add your email to our list here, so we can involve you in the future. And, third, consider making a donation to build the free speech movement and urge Congress and other social media companies to stand up for free speech against foreign interference.

Michael Shellenberger

1,654,625 次观看 • 2 年前

The world took a giant leap forward into totalitarianism yesterday as the Brazilian government blocked X, formerly Twitter, and threatened to fine its citizens $8,900 per day if they use it. Brazil, the world's sixth largest nation by population, now joins North Korea, China, and Iran in the list of countries that have banned X. It is the 12th largest economy in the world and the superpower of the global South. It doesn’t matter whether or not you care about Brazil. Its totalitarianism is at risk of spreading around the world. Yet neither President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, nor anyone else in the US government has formally denounced the censorship. That’s probably because Biden, Harris, and Democrats not only support the censorship but have also been directly funding it. Of course, there is authentic demand for censorship from within Brazil, and it is ultimately up to the Brazilian people to reverse the nation’s descent into totalitarianism. Brazil’s powerful government-funded news media corporations have been urging censorship, which benefits President Lula’s ruling Workers’ Party. It’s up to Senate President Rodrigo Pacheco to impeach the Supreme Court Justice turned dictator, Alexandre de Moraes. At the same time, the Biden administration and Democrats have played an influential role in instigating censorship in Brazil. The FBI went to Brazil and gave its Supreme Court justices advice on how to censor its population. The US government has been funding many of the NGOs in Brazil that have demanded censorship since the election of a populist president there in 2018. And when I testified before Congress in May of this year, the Democrats on the committee and their witness defended Brazil’s censorship. And Pacheco yesterday affirmed his support for Moraes. After the election of populist president Jair Bolsonaro in 2018, the US government funded pro-censorship organizations that demanded censorship. Moraes yesterday openly defended censorship to prevent “extremist populist groups” from coming to power. As United States Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr noted yesterday, that’s a direct violation of the Brazilian constitution, which explicitly protects political speech. As such, the totalitarian takeover of Brazil is a model for what the Democrats and the legacy news media want for the whole world. Pro-censorship scholars at Stanford and Harvard, Democrats in Congress, and the US news media have long recognized that the First Amendment is an obstacle to their plans. And so they have supported censorship efforts by nations with weaker free speech protections, like Brazil, Britain, Australia, and the European Union, to censor and even block X. It’s important that we fight back. We need to show our support for free speech. I urge my Brazilian friends to stay on the platform. Everyone knows that it would be extremely difficult for Moraes to enforce his insane decree, much less fairly and equally. Proof of this comes from the fact that the Brazilian government and the ruling Workers’ Party are still using X, which means they are also using VPNs to evade their own ban. Brazil is thus not just a dictatorship but a lawless one. Its leaders are behaving like the hypocritical pig leaders in George Orwell’s Animal Farm. And independent Brazilian politicians including Senator Eduardo Girão, Congressman Marcel Van Hattam, and Vice Governor of Minas Gerais, Mateus Simões are all resisting the ban and posting on X. “I never imagined myself practicing and propagating civil disobedience,” said Simões, “but censorship cannot be tolerated, ever.” If you’re not already a premium subscriber to X, please consider becoming one. If you can do more, please consider subscribing to Public. And if you can do even more than that, please make a tax-deductible donation to the free speech movement here: Biden and Harris and other political leaders must denounce what is happening. It’s incredible that the only US government official to criticize Brazil’s dictators is the FCC’s Brendan Carr. Congress must hold hearings. People around the world should recognize Brazil’s banning of X as an attack on free speech everywhere. Everyone is at greater risk of totalitarianism when major countries like Brazil succumb to it. The good news is that the whole world is watching and many in the legacy news media in Brazil are denouncing the government’s ban on X. It’s not too late to turn things around. The world took a giant leap toward dystopia yesterday. But a worldwide free speech movement can pull Brazil back. It’s time to make 1984 and Animal Farm fiction again.

The world took a giant leap forward into totalitarianism yesterday as the Brazilian government blocked X, formerly Twitter, and threatened to fine its citizens $8,900 per day if they use it. Brazil, the world's sixth largest nation by population, now joins North Korea, China, and Iran in the list of countries that have banned X. It is the 12th largest economy in the world and the superpower of the global South. It doesn’t matter whether or not you care about Brazil. Its totalitarianism is at risk of spreading around the world. Yet neither President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, nor anyone else in the US government has formally denounced the censorship. That’s probably because Biden, Harris, and Democrats not only support the censorship but have also been directly funding it. Of course, there is authentic demand for censorship from within Brazil, and it is ultimately up to the Brazilian people to reverse the nation’s descent into totalitarianism. Brazil’s powerful government-funded news media corporations have been urging censorship, which benefits President Lula’s ruling Workers’ Party. It’s up to Senate President Rodrigo Pacheco to impeach the Supreme Court Justice turned dictator, Alexandre de Moraes. At the same time, the Biden administration and Democrats have played an influential role in instigating censorship in Brazil. The FBI went to Brazil and gave its Supreme Court justices advice on how to censor its population. The US government has been funding many of the NGOs in Brazil that have demanded censorship since the election of a populist president there in 2018. And when I testified before Congress in May of this year, the Democrats on the committee and their witness defended Brazil’s censorship. And Pacheco yesterday affirmed his support for Moraes. After the election of populist president Jair Bolsonaro in 2018, the US government funded pro-censorship organizations that demanded censorship. Moraes yesterday openly defended censorship to prevent “extremist populist groups” from coming to power. As United States Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr noted yesterday, that’s a direct violation of the Brazilian constitution, which explicitly protects political speech. As such, the totalitarian takeover of Brazil is a model for what the Democrats and the legacy news media want for the whole world. Pro-censorship scholars at Stanford and Harvard, Democrats in Congress, and the US news media have long recognized that the First Amendment is an obstacle to their plans. And so they have supported censorship efforts by nations with weaker free speech protections, like Brazil, Britain, Australia, and the European Union, to censor and even block X. It’s important that we fight back. We need to show our support for free speech. I urge my Brazilian friends to stay on the platform. Everyone knows that it would be extremely difficult for Moraes to enforce his insane decree, much less fairly and equally. Proof of this comes from the fact that the Brazilian government and the ruling Workers’ Party are still using X, which means they are also using VPNs to evade their own ban. Brazil is thus not just a dictatorship but a lawless one. Its leaders are behaving like the hypocritical pig leaders in George Orwell’s Animal Farm. And independent Brazilian politicians including Senator Eduardo Girão, Congressman Marcel Van Hattam, and Vice Governor of Minas Gerais, Mateus Simões are all resisting the ban and posting on X. “I never imagined myself practicing and propagating civil disobedience,” said Simões, “but censorship cannot be tolerated, ever.” If you’re not already a premium subscriber to X, please consider becoming one. If you can do more, please consider subscribing to Public. And if you can do even more than that, please make a tax-deductible donation to the free speech movement here: Biden and Harris and other political leaders must denounce what is happening. It’s incredible that the only US government official to criticize Brazil’s dictators is the FCC’s Brendan Carr. Congress must hold hearings. People around the world should recognize Brazil’s banning of X as an attack on free speech everywhere. Everyone is at greater risk of totalitarianism when major countries like Brazil succumb to it. The good news is that the whole world is watching and many in the legacy news media in Brazil are denouncing the government’s ban on X. It’s not too late to turn things around. The world took a giant leap toward dystopia yesterday. But a worldwide free speech movement can pull Brazil back. It’s time to make 1984 and Animal Farm fiction again.

Michael Shellenberger

6,231,475 次观看 • 2 年前

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has moved swiftly to dismantle the federal censorship infrastructure. In his first week, he signed an executive order barring agencies from funding or facilitating the monitoring or removal of lawful domestic speech. His administration has phased out censorship-related NSF grants, eliminated the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, which had coordinated with outside groups to shape online narratives, and shut down USAID, which funded censorship advocacy in Europe and Brazil. And Trump’s 2026 budget proposes cutting $491 million from the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency, which oversaw election and Covid censorship in 2020 and 2021. But the threat to free speech remains and has even grown stronger around the world, particularly in Europe. The UK is arresting 30 people per day for speech crimes. In Germany, 14 little-known state media agencies (SMAs) empowered by the 2020 “Media State Treaty” now monitor private journalists for compliance with vague “journalistic diligence” standards while exempting public broadcasters from the same scrutiny. French authorities want mandatory digital identification for users of social media platforms. The European Commission appears to desire the power to ban or censor whole platforms, particularly Elon Musk’s X. And an Irish newspaper this week reported that the European Commission accused Ireland of “failing” to comply with laws regulating hate speech. The wind remains at the back of free speech lovers. The change of government in the U.S. is already influencing Europe, where officials appear to be reconsidering some of the most aggressive censorship policies. In the UK, American negotiators have raised concerns about free speech tied to the Online Safety Act. At the same time, in the EU, the Digital Services Act enforcement faces legal and logistical delays. France has drawn criticism for prosecuting satirical speech, and in Germany, a CBS 60 Minutes segment has fueled backlash against selective speech policing. Meanwhile, some in Brussels worry that the EU’s growing alignment with censorship risks its credibility as a champion of liberal democracy. Even so, there is reason to be alarmed by what’s happening in Europe, says the Foundation for Freedom Online’s Mike Benz. “The most existential threats are now shifting around the international landscape and how that boomerangs back to the U.S.,” he said in a new podcast. American censorship leaders are working with European governments and NGOs to impose European censorship on social media platforms. “The University of Cambridge Social Decisionmaking Lab works with the Global Engagement Center at the State Department,” he said. “It works with CISA at DHS. It works with the entire USAID network and USAID funds dozens of these funds — University of Cambridge’s censorship work, London School of Economics, King's College, Sheffield College, Oxford Internet Institute — the State Department and USAID fund all these. And they effectively are a foreign group that is paid for by taxpayers to subvert the agenda taxpayers voted for. It's an incredible scandal.” And Europe is reacting to the Trump administration by seeking to replace the financing it cut for censorship. “Just this week,” Benz said, “the EU announced a a giant science research fund, $500 million, as an initial pool of funding and said they are actively recruiting researchers from the United States who USAID funded to come get their funds so they can continue their work by going to the EU. And this is happening in tandem with a tense standoff between the Trump administration and the EU over everything from Russia-Ukraine to tariff policy to tech regulation to you name it. And so the EU is basically pumping up the shadow diplomacy aspect of the US.” All of this is happening at a time when the ruling parties in Germany, France, and Romania are resorting to increasingly undemocratic tactics in what appear to be desperate attempts to hold onto power as populist challengers surge in the polls. In Germany, the domestic intelligence service has officially labeled the AfD “extremist” a transparent response to the new government’s weakness and the AfD’s new status as the nation’s most popular political party. In France, prosecutors banned Marine Le Pen from running for president at a time where she too is polling first nationwide. And in Romania, the high court disqualified the leading opposition candidate from running for president, which most believe is a reaction to his opposition to a new NATO base in Romania. “What's happening in Europe right now is simultaneously highly optimistic, white-pilling, inspiring, but also dark, twisted, sadistic, calamitous, catastrophic, and apocalyptic,” said Benz. Populist political success has caused NATO and the EU establishment to have “prosecutors and judges nullifying or barring candidates from running when they're winning, and prosecutors taking them out so they can't run again or can't make their voices heard or can't campaign because they're in prison or outright barred.” Why is this happening? What can be done about it? Please subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has moved swiftly to dismantle the federal censorship infrastructure. In his first week, he signed an executive order barring agencies from funding or facilitating the monitoring or removal of lawful domestic speech. His administration has phased out censorship-related NSF grants, eliminated the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, which had coordinated with outside groups to shape online narratives, and shut down USAID, which funded censorship advocacy in Europe and Brazil. And Trump’s 2026 budget proposes cutting $491 million from the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency, which oversaw election and Covid censorship in 2020 and 2021. But the threat to free speech remains and has even grown stronger around the world, particularly in Europe. The UK is arresting 30 people per day for speech crimes. In Germany, 14 little-known state media agencies (SMAs) empowered by the 2020 “Media State Treaty” now monitor private journalists for compliance with vague “journalistic diligence” standards while exempting public broadcasters from the same scrutiny. French authorities want mandatory digital identification for users of social media platforms. The European Commission appears to desire the power to ban or censor whole platforms, particularly Elon Musk’s X. And an Irish newspaper this week reported that the European Commission accused Ireland of “failing” to comply with laws regulating hate speech. The wind remains at the back of free speech lovers. The change of government in the U.S. is already influencing Europe, where officials appear to be reconsidering some of the most aggressive censorship policies. In the UK, American negotiators have raised concerns about free speech tied to the Online Safety Act. At the same time, in the EU, the Digital Services Act enforcement faces legal and logistical delays. France has drawn criticism for prosecuting satirical speech, and in Germany, a CBS 60 Minutes segment has fueled backlash against selective speech policing. Meanwhile, some in Brussels worry that the EU’s growing alignment with censorship risks its credibility as a champion of liberal democracy. Even so, there is reason to be alarmed by what’s happening in Europe, says the Foundation for Freedom Online’s Mike Benz. “The most existential threats are now shifting around the international landscape and how that boomerangs back to the U.S.,” he said in a new podcast. American censorship leaders are working with European governments and NGOs to impose European censorship on social media platforms. “The University of Cambridge Social Decisionmaking Lab works with the Global Engagement Center at the State Department,” he said. “It works with CISA at DHS. It works with the entire USAID network and USAID funds dozens of these funds — University of Cambridge’s censorship work, London School of Economics, King's College, Sheffield College, Oxford Internet Institute — the State Department and USAID fund all these. And they effectively are a foreign group that is paid for by taxpayers to subvert the agenda taxpayers voted for. It's an incredible scandal.” And Europe is reacting to the Trump administration by seeking to replace the financing it cut for censorship. “Just this week,” Benz said, “the EU announced a a giant science research fund, $500 million, as an initial pool of funding and said they are actively recruiting researchers from the United States who USAID funded to come get their funds so they can continue their work by going to the EU. And this is happening in tandem with a tense standoff between the Trump administration and the EU over everything from Russia-Ukraine to tariff policy to tech regulation to you name it. And so the EU is basically pumping up the shadow diplomacy aspect of the US.” All of this is happening at a time when the ruling parties in Germany, France, and Romania are resorting to increasingly undemocratic tactics in what appear to be desperate attempts to hold onto power as populist challengers surge in the polls. In Germany, the domestic intelligence service has officially labeled the AfD “extremist” a transparent response to the new government’s weakness and the AfD’s new status as the nation’s most popular political party. In France, prosecutors banned Marine Le Pen from running for president at a time where she too is polling first nationwide. And in Romania, the high court disqualified the leading opposition candidate from running for president, which most believe is a reaction to his opposition to a new NATO base in Romania. “What's happening in Europe right now is simultaneously highly optimistic, white-pilling, inspiring, but also dark, twisted, sadistic, calamitous, catastrophic, and apocalyptic,” said Benz. Populist political success has caused NATO and the EU establishment to have “prosecutors and judges nullifying or barring candidates from running when they're winning, and prosecutors taking them out so they can't run again or can't make their voices heard or can't campaign because they're in prison or outright barred.” Why is this happening? What can be done about it? Please subscribe now to support Public's defense of free speech, read the rest of the article, and watch the full video!

Michael Shellenberger

189,345 次观看 • 1 年前

THIS IS SCARY Yesterday, a group of people in Scotland protested a new hate speech law. "The irony of this hateful, spiteful law coming into play on April's Fools Day..." said one of the protesters. "Criminalizing free speech in this country is absolutely disgraceful." While I was happy to see the protest, I am deeply alarmed that the Scottish government passed the law in the first place. J.K. Rowling rightly wrote on X that the law gives the government the power to arrest people who refuse to call male rapists and murderers “women” and “she” and “her” if that’s what those men demand. The Hate Crime and Public Order Act of 2021 creates a new crime for "stirring up hatred," including related to trans identity. People can be arrested for things they say in the privacy of their own home. They can be arrested for simply being "insulting." And prosecutors need only prove your stirring up of hatred was "likely" not "intended." You might think this all has nothing to do with you. You don’t live in Scotland. But it has everything to do with you. What you say online could be held as criminal hate speech in Scotland, simply by somebody reading it there. And it’s not just Scotland. In the US, pro-censorship forces hope a Supreme Court victory will let them once again ramp up censorship demands by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI. EU officials are putting in place a sweeping online censorship system that far exceeds in power and scope anything attempted under Communism or fascism. And last week, European political leaders weaponized their intelligence and security agencies in order to smear everyone from German farmers to conservative politicians as “Russia-linked.” And yet the United States and EU governments pump far more money than Russia into “non-governmental” organizations like the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, the Aspen Institute, and the Atlantic Council to wage influence campaigns aimed at smearing ordinary farmers and truckers as “Russian-linked” and “far-right,” and influencing elections. To understand how ridiculous and totalitarian the EU’s focus on “foreign manipulation” is, consider the fact that, during the Cold War, the US government’s Central Intelligence Agency not only allowed Americans to read Soviet newspapers but actually translated them into English and sent them to thousands of libraries across the United States. Just think about it: do Europeans really need Russians, “Russia-linked” individuals, or “individuals echoing Moscow” to be angry about high energy prices and uncontrolled immigration? The entire “Russia influence” narrative coming from European politicians and intelligence agencies rests upon the monstrous insult that Europeans would be compliant were it not for Russians sowing discontent. This is an old political trick: characterize your enemies as foreigners. It’s also a trick of totalitarians. What’s driving all of this? Part of it is that EU politicians are trying to influence the June elections by demonizing their political opponents as puppets of Russia. But another part of it appears to be driven by genuine hatred. Just listen to Scotland First Minister Humza Yousaf condemning the Scottish government on racial terms. “Why are we so surprised by the most senior positions in Scotland filled by those who are white?" he said. "Lord President — white. Every high court judge — white!” Humza suggests that the reason for all of this is because Scottish people are racist. But the real reason is that 95% of Scottish people are white. The fact that Humza, a nonwhite Muslim, is the highest-ranking Scottish politician is a sign of how non-racist the Scottish people are. For Humza to reach the top political job in Scotland and insist that the reason he’s so rare is because the Scottish people are racist is itself hateful, and pathological. The bad news is that the censors are on the offensive and we are on the defensive. In the US, Europe, Scotland, Germany, Ireland, Canada, and Brazil, an alliance of government agencies, government-funded think tanks, and corporate media are demanding more censorship, whether through laws like the one enacted in Scotland or through executive actions by agencies like the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and FBI. The good news is we are starting to find our footing. We have been proud to publish investigations that have uncovered government disinformation and censorship demands in Germany, the Czech Republic, Ireland, Canada, and Brazil. These investigations reveal the same cast of characters, including intelligence and security agencies, mainstream news media, and ostensibly “non-governmental” organizations that happen to be heavily funded by governments. As importantly, we can expose the hatred behind the hate speech policies, and continue to point out that the solution to hate speech is free speech, not censorship. The way to counter hate is to do what Darryl Davis did, which was persuade KKK members to see him as a human being, and to give up their white robes. Davis will be the first person to tell you that he couldn’t have done his work with censorship, only with freedom of speech. There’s much we need to do...

THIS IS SCARY Yesterday, a group of people in Scotland protested a new hate speech law. "The irony of this hateful, spiteful law coming into play on April's Fools Day..." said one of the protesters. "Criminalizing free speech in this country is absolutely disgraceful." While I was happy to see the protest, I am deeply alarmed that the Scottish government passed the law in the first place. J.K. Rowling rightly wrote on X that the law gives the government the power to arrest people who refuse to call male rapists and murderers “women” and “she” and “her” if that’s what those men demand. The Hate Crime and Public Order Act of 2021 creates a new crime for "stirring up hatred," including related to trans identity. People can be arrested for things they say in the privacy of their own home. They can be arrested for simply being "insulting." And prosecutors need only prove your stirring up of hatred was "likely" not "intended." You might think this all has nothing to do with you. You don’t live in Scotland. But it has everything to do with you. What you say online could be held as criminal hate speech in Scotland, simply by somebody reading it there. And it’s not just Scotland. In the US, pro-censorship forces hope a Supreme Court victory will let them once again ramp up censorship demands by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI. EU officials are putting in place a sweeping online censorship system that far exceeds in power and scope anything attempted under Communism or fascism. And last week, European political leaders weaponized their intelligence and security agencies in order to smear everyone from German farmers to conservative politicians as “Russia-linked.” And yet the United States and EU governments pump far more money than Russia into “non-governmental” organizations like the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, the Aspen Institute, and the Atlantic Council to wage influence campaigns aimed at smearing ordinary farmers and truckers as “Russian-linked” and “far-right,” and influencing elections. To understand how ridiculous and totalitarian the EU’s focus on “foreign manipulation” is, consider the fact that, during the Cold War, the US government’s Central Intelligence Agency not only allowed Americans to read Soviet newspapers but actually translated them into English and sent them to thousands of libraries across the United States. Just think about it: do Europeans really need Russians, “Russia-linked” individuals, or “individuals echoing Moscow” to be angry about high energy prices and uncontrolled immigration? The entire “Russia influence” narrative coming from European politicians and intelligence agencies rests upon the monstrous insult that Europeans would be compliant were it not for Russians sowing discontent. This is an old political trick: characterize your enemies as foreigners. It’s also a trick of totalitarians. What’s driving all of this? Part of it is that EU politicians are trying to influence the June elections by demonizing their political opponents as puppets of Russia. But another part of it appears to be driven by genuine hatred. Just listen to Scotland First Minister Humza Yousaf condemning the Scottish government on racial terms. “Why are we so surprised by the most senior positions in Scotland filled by those who are white?" he said. "Lord President — white. Every high court judge — white!” Humza suggests that the reason for all of this is because Scottish people are racist. But the real reason is that 95% of Scottish people are white. The fact that Humza, a nonwhite Muslim, is the highest-ranking Scottish politician is a sign of how non-racist the Scottish people are. For Humza to reach the top political job in Scotland and insist that the reason he’s so rare is because the Scottish people are racist is itself hateful, and pathological. The bad news is that the censors are on the offensive and we are on the defensive. In the US, Europe, Scotland, Germany, Ireland, Canada, and Brazil, an alliance of government agencies, government-funded think tanks, and corporate media are demanding more censorship, whether through laws like the one enacted in Scotland or through executive actions by agencies like the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and FBI. The good news is we are starting to find our footing. We have been proud to publish investigations that have uncovered government disinformation and censorship demands in Germany, the Czech Republic, Ireland, Canada, and Brazil. These investigations reveal the same cast of characters, including intelligence and security agencies, mainstream news media, and ostensibly “non-governmental” organizations that happen to be heavily funded by governments. As importantly, we can expose the hatred behind the hate speech policies, and continue to point out that the solution to hate speech is free speech, not censorship. The way to counter hate is to do what Darryl Davis did, which was persuade KKK members to see him as a human being, and to give up their white robes. Davis will be the first person to tell you that he couldn’t have done his work with censorship, only with freedom of speech. There’s much we need to do...

Michael Shellenberger

625,978 次观看 • 2 年前

WATCH: FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley’s opening remarks on the threat of jawboning to the First Amendment to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on Wednesday, October 29th, 2025: “I’ve spent nearly twenty years defending the First Amendment rights of speakers from every point on the ideological spectrum. At FIRE, we have one rule: If speech is protected, we’ll defend it. Typically, the censorship we fight is straightforward: The government punishes a speaker for saying things the government doesn’t like. That’s a classic First Amendment violation, a fastball down the middle. Unfortunately, that kind of textbook censorship isn’t the only way government actors silence disfavored or dissenting speech. Far too often, government officials from both sides of the partisan divide engage in “jawboning” — that is, they abuse the actual or perceived power of their office to threaten, bully, or coerce others into censoring speech. This indirect censorship violates the First Amendment just as surely as direct suppression. This isn’t new law. The First Amendment’s prohibition against coerced censorship dates back decades, to the Supreme Court’s 1963 ruling in Bantam Books v. Sullivan. In that case, the Court confronted a Rhode Island state commission that sent threatening letters, “phrased virtually as orders,” to booksellers distributing “objectionable” titles — with follow-up visits from police, to ensure the message had been received. The Court held the commission’s “operation was in fact a scheme of state censorship effectuated by extra-legal sanctions; they acted as an agency not to advise but to suppress.” And in the decades since, courts have consistently heeded Bantam Books’ call to “look through forms to the substance” of censorship, and to remain vigilant against both formal and informal schemes to silence speech. But government officials regularly abuse their power to silence others, so the lesson of Bantam Books bears repeating. And in deciding National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo last year, the Supreme Court unanimously and emphatically reaffirmed it. In Vullo, New York State officials punished the NRA for its views on gun rights by threatening regulatory enforcement against insurance companies that did business with the group and offering leniency to those who stopped. New York’s backdoor censorship was successful — and unlawful. This regulatory carrot-and-stick approach was designed to chill speech, and the Court reiterated that “a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly: A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.” To be sure, the government may speak for itself, and the public has an interest in hearing from it. But it may not wield that power to censor. As Judge Richard Posner put it: The government is “entitled to what it wants to say — but only within limits.” Under no circumstances may our public servants “employ threats to squelch the free speech of private citizens.” So the law is clear: Government actors cannot silence a speaker by threatening “we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way,” as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission did last month. Nevertheless, recent examples of jawboning abound: against private broadcasters, private universities, private social media platforms, and more. The First Amendment does not abide mob tactics. Despite the clarity of the law, fighting back against jawboning is difficult. Targeted speakers can’t sue federal officials for monetary damages for First Amendment violations, removing a powerful deterrent. And as a practical matter, informal censorship is often invisible to those silenced. That’s particularly true in the context of social media platforms, as demonstrated by another recent Supreme Court case, Murthy v. Missouri. Murthy involved coercive demands by Biden administration officials to social media platforms about posts related to Covid-19, vaccines, elections, and other subjects, resulting in the suppression of speech the administration opposed. But the Court held the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, because the causal link between their deleted posts and the administration’s pressure wasn’t sufficiently clear. Murthy illustrates a severe information disparity: Users whose speech is suppressed have no way to know if government actors put their thumb on the scale. Only the government and the platforms have that knowledge, and usually neither want to share it. That’s why FIRE authored model legislation that would require the government to disclose communications between federal agencies and social media companies regarding content published on its platform, with limited exceptions. But transparency is not enough. Federal officials must be meaningfully deterred from jawboning, and held accountable when they do. Jawboning betrays our national commitment to freedom of expression. Congress should take action to stop it.” 🎥: CSPAN

WATCH: FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley’s opening remarks on the threat of jawboning to the First Amendment to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on Wednesday, October 29th, 2025: “I’ve spent nearly twenty years defending the First Amendment rights of speakers from every point on the ideological spectrum. At FIRE, we have one rule: If speech is protected, we’ll defend it. Typically, the censorship we fight is straightforward: The government punishes a speaker for saying things the government doesn’t like. That’s a classic First Amendment violation, a fastball down the middle. Unfortunately, that kind of textbook censorship isn’t the only way government actors silence disfavored or dissenting speech. Far too often, government officials from both sides of the partisan divide engage in “jawboning” — that is, they abuse the actual or perceived power of their office to threaten, bully, or coerce others into censoring speech. This indirect censorship violates the First Amendment just as surely as direct suppression. This isn’t new law. The First Amendment’s prohibition against coerced censorship dates back decades, to the Supreme Court’s 1963 ruling in Bantam Books v. Sullivan. In that case, the Court confronted a Rhode Island state commission that sent threatening letters, “phrased virtually as orders,” to booksellers distributing “objectionable” titles — with follow-up visits from police, to ensure the message had been received. The Court held the commission’s “operation was in fact a scheme of state censorship effectuated by extra-legal sanctions; they acted as an agency not to advise but to suppress.” And in the decades since, courts have consistently heeded Bantam Books’ call to “look through forms to the substance” of censorship, and to remain vigilant against both formal and informal schemes to silence speech. But government officials regularly abuse their power to silence others, so the lesson of Bantam Books bears repeating. And in deciding National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo last year, the Supreme Court unanimously and emphatically reaffirmed it. In Vullo, New York State officials punished the NRA for its views on gun rights by threatening regulatory enforcement against insurance companies that did business with the group and offering leniency to those who stopped. New York’s backdoor censorship was successful — and unlawful. This regulatory carrot-and-stick approach was designed to chill speech, and the Court reiterated that “a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly: A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.” To be sure, the government may speak for itself, and the public has an interest in hearing from it. But it may not wield that power to censor. As Judge Richard Posner put it: The government is “entitled to what it wants to say — but only within limits.” Under no circumstances may our public servants “employ threats to squelch the free speech of private citizens.” So the law is clear: Government actors cannot silence a speaker by threatening “we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way,” as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission did last month. Nevertheless, recent examples of jawboning abound: against private broadcasters, private universities, private social media platforms, and more. The First Amendment does not abide mob tactics. Despite the clarity of the law, fighting back against jawboning is difficult. Targeted speakers can’t sue federal officials for monetary damages for First Amendment violations, removing a powerful deterrent. And as a practical matter, informal censorship is often invisible to those silenced. That’s particularly true in the context of social media platforms, as demonstrated by another recent Supreme Court case, Murthy v. Missouri. Murthy involved coercive demands by Biden administration officials to social media platforms about posts related to Covid-19, vaccines, elections, and other subjects, resulting in the suppression of speech the administration opposed. But the Court held the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, because the causal link between their deleted posts and the administration’s pressure wasn’t sufficiently clear. Murthy illustrates a severe information disparity: Users whose speech is suppressed have no way to know if government actors put their thumb on the scale. Only the government and the platforms have that knowledge, and usually neither want to share it. That’s why FIRE authored model legislation that would require the government to disclose communications between federal agencies and social media companies regarding content published on its platform, with limited exceptions. But transparency is not enough. Federal officials must be meaningfully deterred from jawboning, and held accountable when they do. Jawboning betrays our national commitment to freedom of expression. Congress should take action to stop it.” 🎥: CSPAN

FIRE

10,488 次观看 • 9 个月前