Americans would be loath to accept losing freedom of speech. So how do those power-hungry politicians, bureaucrats, and partisan billionaires seeking to limit the First Amendment in their drive to enforce their unpopular goals (such as socialist economics, irrational environmental policies, and partisan abuse of education) achieve their ends?
The practice of outright censorship isn’t popular, so different approaches are employed.
Those with contrary opinions are accused of spreading “disinformation.” Those disagreeing with the power brokers are labelled “racist,” “homophobic,” or “climate change deniers.” The Biden and Obama Administrations adopted this practice. Biden has consistently attempted to label his political opponents with terms such as “Mega Maga.” Appointees of those two regimes sought to place individuals in key positions such as chair of the Federal Communications Commission to attack contrary news outlets.
Seeking to leapfrog over what they consider the inconvenience of the Bill of Rights, they fund and adapt international practices that aren’t subject to U.S. Constitutional safeguards.
Sometimes, their schemes get exposed.
Following disturbing revelations, the Biden State Department was forced to pull funding from George Soros’ Global Disinformation Index, which endeavored to attack information outlets that didn’t kowtow to progressive views. Before the exposure, the U.S. State Department, which, like other government agencies should be nonpartisan, had helped fund this group. The Washington Examiner noted that $300,000 had been provided by the State Department to this anti-First Amendment organization.
That international dodge around the Constitution is an ongoing practice. AMN reports that The head of the United Nations, Secretary-General António Guterres, has called for a global crackdown on what he called “mis- and disinformation on the internet.”
On occasion, federal entities employ more direct assaults. As the Washington Times reported recently, The National Archives and Records Administration ordered visitors in Washington for the March for Life to take off or cover up their pro-life apparel before entering their public facility, specifically contrary to established policy which does not forbid such apparel. They were joined in their censorship campaign by another federal museum. Lawsuits have been filed to overturn their illegal and unconstitutional discrimination.
Outright censorship has occasionally been employed. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s involvement in ensuring that the Hunter Biden Laptop story was intentionally excluded on social media outlets provides a chilling example of this.
Once a proud nonpartisan organization, the FBI has become directly involved in the suppression of free speech. A House Judiciary Committee investigation is calling out Biden’s Attorney General Merrick Garland based on whistleblower documents about a “threat tag” being applied and used to track parents who object to radical teaching practices in public schools. “The email… referenced [an] October 4 directive to the FBI to address school board threats and notified FBI personnel about a new ‘threat tag’ created by the Counterterrorism and Criminal Divisions… The whistleblower provided ‘specific evidence that federal law enforcement operationalized counterterrorism tools at the behest of a left-wing special interest group against concerned parents,’ referencing the National School Boards Association’s coordination with the Biden administration to secure the DOJ’s action against parents.”
Problems persist in the partisan use of federal law enforcement. The latest example comes from revelations that the agency considers conservative Catholics, for absurd reasons such as preferring a Latin Mass, to be a “threat.”
Across the nation, news outlets in print, on the web, or on the air are subjected to strident campaigns to stop contrary views from being presented. It is an outgrowth of the censorship movement, often violent, which has plagued many college campuses, where non-leftist speakers have been viciously prevented from offering their views.
Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer has, in the past, even proposed, unsuccessfully, legislation to limit some applications of the key Bill of Rights provision.
The attempts, sometimes subtle, sometimes blunt, to override the First Amendment are manifest, abundant and clear.
Illustration: Pixabay