The Erosion of Free Speech: Political Endorsements of Censorship in the U.S.
How Democratic Leaders' Push for Control Over 'Disinformation' Threatens the First Amendment
Note: Since Dr. Malone has turned off cross-posting, I will provide this ChatGPT summary of Dr. Malone’s latest article, “John Kerry and the Assault on Free Speech.”
I find that many of Dr. Malone’s views do not align with my own, but on the topic of the deep state — its propaganda, control, and sinister character — he has done some extremely good analysis. However, it is not just Democrats — as he sometimes appears to believe. To be fair, he knows it is not just the U.S.A., and it is not just current times. Dr. Malone tends to to view everything in Libertarian Right versus Communistic Left terms, and to that extent, I find his analysis flawed and parochial (IMHO).
Dall-E, the image AI, objected to this theme of a deep state; it was against content modern policies. It started to generate an image, and then removed it before completion. So, I asked Dall-E what sort of prompt might I use to get around the content moderation. A curse on the Open AI actors who made this happen. We have to learn how to defeat the bastards. Such irony!
Summary
Robert W. Malone’s article critiques prominent Democratic politicians for supporting what he describes as an "assault" on the First Amendment and free speech in the United States. He argues that figures like John Kerry, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Hillary Clinton have openly endorsed measures to censor speech they consider disinformation, which Malone contends is a violation of the First Amendment.
Malone begins by noting the growing endorsement of censorship by Democratic candidates, specifically mentioning Governor Tim Walz’s remarks during a vice-presidential debate, where he allegedly supported the government's right to censor American citizens. This, Malone claims, is part of a decade-long trend of increasing governmental control over free speech, which he calls the "censorship-industrial complex."
The article centers on a speech given by John Kerry at the World Economic Forum, where Kerry expressed concern over the difficulty of governing in today’s media environment. He noted that the traditional “referees” of factual information had been diminished, and social media allows people to select news sources that reinforce their beliefs, often spreading disinformation. Kerry is quoted as saying that the First Amendment stands as a “major block” to addressing these challenges and that winning elections is key to enacting changes that might circumvent free speech protections. According to Malone, Kerry’s remarks reveal a broader desire among certain political leaders to suppress speech in order to “implement change” in governance and policy more effectively.
Malone further connects Kerry’s statements to other Democratic politicians who have similarly pushed for limitations on free speech. For example, he cites Hillary Clinton’s suggestion of criminal penalties for spreading misinformation and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s call for regulating the media environment to prevent the spread of disinformation. Malone interprets these actions as part of a coordinated effort to bypass the First Amendment in the name of combating misinformation, an effort he argues is designed to consolidate political power.
The article goes on to list several examples where individuals have faced legal or financial repercussions for engaging in speech that contradicts dominant political or scientific views. Journalist Mark Steyn, for instance, was ordered to pay $1 million in punitive damages for mocking a climate scientist, an act that Malone ties to broader attempts to punish “climate denialism.” He argues that this is part of a larger campaign to suppress dissent on controversial topics like climate change and election results, likening the treatment of dissenters to authoritarian tactics.
Malone also points to legal actions taken by New York Attorney General Letitia James against organizations like VDare, an immigration-restrictionist website run by Peter Brimelow. Although James was unable to find any criminal activity, Malone argues that she used her office to drown the organization in legal costs, effectively silencing its dissenting views. This, he suggests, exemplifies how governmental powers are being used to suppress speech that is deemed politically inconvenient or controversial.
The article also touches on academic censorship, focusing on the case of University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax. Wax, a critic of affirmative action, was sanctioned by the university for what it described as “unprofessionalism.” Malone argues that these sanctions are actually punitive measures taken in response to Wax’s expression of controversial views on race, culture, and gender. He warns that Wax’s case sets a dangerous precedent for academic freedom, as it suggests that faculty members with unpopular or dissenting views may face professional consequences under the guise of enforcing standards of conduct.
Malone expands his argument by suggesting that these trends are not limited to the U.S. He references the case of CJ Hopkins, an American living in Germany who was convicted for opposing COVID-19 restrictions, as an example of how governments worldwide are targeting dissenting voices. He asserts that this growing pattern of censorship is designed to control public discourse and protect entrenched political power, particularly in democracies.
The article concludes with a broader warning about the future of free speech in the U.S. and other democracies. Malone contends that the current U.S. administration is laying the groundwork to close off the internet to free speech and install censors at all levels. He predicts this effort will eventually confront figures like Elon Musk, whose platforms have been more open to diverse viewpoints, but will also target alternative information sources like Rumble. According to Malone, the ultimate goal of this censorship campaign is to secure regime control over public discourse, effectively silencing opposition and dissent under the pretext of protecting the state from populist movements.
In sum, Malone’s article portrays a coordinated, growing effort by Democratic politicians and government institutions to undermine the First Amendment and suppress free speech. He warns that this erosion of constitutional protections will have far-reaching consequences for American democracy, ultimately curbing citizens' freedom to know the truth and express dissenting views.