Internet
The Soft Totalitarianism of the Political Class
From Reason
Officials pursue an anti-liberty agenda through unofficial pressure and foreign regulators.
It’s no secret that governments around the world are chiseling away at people’s liberties. Rights advocates document a nearly two decade decline in freedom. Civil liberties activists warn of a worldwide free speech recession. And while American restrictions on government power hold the line better than pale equivalents elsewhere, the political class seems determined to end-run those protections and impose creeping totalitarianism by leveraging the authority of allies in other countries.
“Obrigado Brasil!” Keith Ellison, Minnesota’s attorney general, wrote this week to thank that country’s authoritarian Supreme Court for its recent ban on the X social media platform.
The court demanded X censor political views it called “disinformation” and appoint a new legal representative to receive court orders—after threatening the previous one with arrest. Importantly, the ban threatens ordinary Brazilians with hefty fines if they evade the prohibition on the social media network. Nevertheless, demand for blockade-piercing VPNs surged in Brazil after the court decision.
Ellison serves alongside Minnesota’s Gov. Tim Walz, who is the Democratic candidate for vice president and has falsely claimed “there’s no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech.” He’s also not the only prominent politician to have a real hate-on for X and its CEO, Elon Musk.
“Regulators around the world should threaten Musk with arrest if he doesn’t stop disseminating lies and hate on X,” Robert Reich, Labor Secretary in the Clinton administration and one-time adviser to President Barack Obama, huffed in The Guardian. He cited the recent arrest in France of Telegram CEO Pavel Durov as a precedent. “Like Musk, Durov has styled himself as a free speech absolutist,” Reich sniffed.
But the animus doesn’t stop with X, Telegram, and their bosses.
“For too long, tech platforms have amplified disinformation and extremism with no accountability,” former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton claimed in 2022. “The EU is poised to do something about it. I urge our transatlantic allies to push the Digital Services Act across the finish line and bolster global democracy before it’s too late.”
Leveraging Foreign Authoritarianism for Domestic Purposes
Why would a former U.S. presidential candidate cheerlead for European speech regulations?
“The Digital Services Act will essentially oblige Big Tech to act as a privatized censor on behalf of governments,” Jacob Mchangama, founder of the Danish think tank Justitia and executive director of The Future of Free Speech, warned in 2022. “The European policies do not apply in the U.S., but given the size of the European market and the risk of legal liability, it will be tempting and financially wise for U.S.-based tech companies to skew their global content moderation policies even more toward a European approach to protect their bottom lines and streamline their global standards.”
Now in effect, the law is used to squeeze online speech, including as an end-run around U.S. protections for expression. It’s not the only overseas bypass of U.S. law, either.
Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina “Khan can’t get Congress to pass her antitrust agenda and is losing in U.S. courts, so now she’s leaning on foreign governments to do the anti-business work for her,” The Wall Street Journal editorial board noted last year about Khan’s reliance on European regulators.
Behind-the-Scenes Pressure for Censorship
But attempts to impose control and stifle dissent in the absence of legal authorization or in defiance of constitutional protections also occur here at home. Days after Telegram CEO Durov’s arrest in Paris, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg confirmed what had already been revealed by the Twitter and Facebook
“Senior officials from the Biden administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire,” Zuckerberg told the House Judiciary Committee. He also admitted to suppressing reports about Hunter Biden’s laptop and its incriminating contents under pressure from the FBI.
That implicates not only incumbent President Joe Biden, but also Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate for president. Harris has complained in the past that social media companies are “speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation.”
Oversight, it seems, is now applied through back-channel pressure, and regulation by governments in countries that lack serious protections for free speech. The result is to endanger the role of the United States as a haven for free speech and other liberties in a world growing ever-more authoritarian.
The Political Class Embraces an Increasingly Authoritarian World
“Global freedom declined for the 18th consecutive year in 2023. The breadth and depth of the deterioration were extensive,” Freedom House cautioned in its 2024 annual report. “Political rights and civil liberties were diminished in 52 countries, while only 21 countries made improvements.”
“Today, we are witnessing the dawn of a free-speech recession,” Justitia’s Mchangama mourned two years ago. “Liberal democracies, rather than constituting a counterweight to the authoritarian onslaught, are themselves contributing to the free-speech recession.”
This erosion of protections for free speech and other rights occurs with the encouragement of American officials who want more control over our lives but have been (partly) stymied by American protections for liberty. In a world of global platforms and international travel, these officials are applying extra-legal pressure and relying on overseas friends to punish people for activities that are legal in the U.S.
Readers will notice that most if not all these officials are Democrats. Much ink has been spilled in recent years—rightly—about the authoritarian drift of the Republican Party. GOP vice presidential hopeful J.D. Vance wants to punish ideological opponents and advocates that his allies “seize the administrative state for our own purposes” and that they “seize the assets of the Ford Foundation, tax their assets, and give it to the people who’ve had their lives destroyed by the radical open borders agenda.”
But as illiberalism rises across the political spectrum, Democrats are leapfrogging authoritarianism to embrace a soft totalitarianism enforced by unofficial pressure and foreign allies subject to minimal restraints on their power. They ignore legal constraints and display contempt for this country’s protections for liberty in their quest to leave no refuge for dissent.
If liberty has a future in this country, it will be despite the best efforts of the political class.
|
|
|
By A flurry of controversial bills in Canada, some of which became law, serve to cement this impression.
Now, as President Trump prepares to start his second term in office in the US, Canada’s “orphaned” ruling class continues with the “disinformation” narrative – either as a sign of long-term commitment or looking for new “disinformation partners” elsewhere in the world – or simply as a sign of inertia.
Time will tell, and it will be interesting to see, but for the moment, news out of Canada speaks about a report compiled by the House of Commons Heritage Committee, titled, “Tech Giants’ Intimidation and Subversion Tactics to Evade Regulation in Canada and Globally.”
How about the tactics deployed in Canada – and globally – using all manner of intimidation and subversion to evade citizens’ right to free speech?
Maybe another day, by another ruling coalition.
Right now, the Liberals, the New Democratic Party, and Bloc Québécois stand behind statements such as this one, found in the cumbersomely-named report:
“The Government of Canada notes some individuals and groups create disinformation to promote political ideologies including extremist views and conspiracy theories or simply to make money.”
This looks like a call to combine (yet more) censorship with (yet more) deplatforming. And the ones to “fix” things for Canada’s current government are companies behind major social platforms, like Meta and Google.
But the group of Canada’s MPs behind the report believes so.
They want mechanisms put in place “to detect undesirable or questionable content that may be the product of disinformation or foreign interference and that these platforms be required to promptly identify such content and report it to users.”
Does Canadian parliament’s pressure on US tech companies not count as “foreign interference”? Unclear. Another thing that’s unclear – as in, undefined in the report – is what its authors have in mind when they mention “disinformation” and, “conspiracy theories.”
It’s as if these terms have become “art for art’s sake.”
Whatever that may be, Canada’s ruling parliamentarians want specific actions against these undefined phenomena to be enforced by tech companies.
“Failure to do so should result in penalties,” reads the document.
By Cindy Harper
|
British Journalist Allison Pearson of The Telegraph has found herself under an unexpected police investigation following a social media post she made last year. According to Pearson, the inquiry began with a knock on her door at 9:40 am when two officers informed her that she was under scrutiny for allegedly inciting racial hatred in a post on X. Yet, they won’t tell her what the supposedly offending post was.
Pearson recounted the visit in an article, describing her surprise as the officers delivered the news. “I was accused of a non-crime hate incident. It had to do with something I had posted on X a year ago. A YEAR ago? Yes. Stirring up racial hatred apparently,” she recalled one officer telling her. Despite her attempts to understand the specifics, the officers refused to reveal the details of her alleged offense or identify the complainant, noting only that the individual in question was designated as “the victim.” Essex Police has since clarified that the investigation is based on a report from another police force and is being pursued under section 17 of the Public Order Act 1986, which addresses materials potentially inciting racial hatred. In a statement, a spokesperson confirmed that officers had attended Pearson’s residence “to invite a woman to attend a voluntary interview on the matter.” This approach, however, has drawn criticism from free speech advocates who argue that police intervention in non-crime incidents has a chilling effect on public discourse. Pearson’s experience follows recent shifts in policing policies, stemming from a Court of Appeal decision favoring former officer Harry Miller. Miller had argued that police tracking of gender-critical opinions as hate incidents without criminality stifled free expression. Current UK Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is exploring ways to reinforce police surveillance of non-criminal hate incidents. Meanwhile, X owner Elon Musk, who has previously condemned Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s attacks on free speech, has publicly criticized British law enforcement for investigating social media posts, raising further questions about the role of police in moderating online speech. This incident has sparked a wave of criticism from various corners, including Chris Philp, the Conservative shadow home secretary, who argues that the police should focus on actual crimes rather than policing thoughts and opinions. Echoing this sentiment, Liz Truss, former prime minister, and Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader, have also voiced their concerns, with Truss decrying the investigation as a direct attack on free speech. Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, pointed out the irony of the police’s timing, noting that such actions on Remembrance Sunday, a day dedicated to democratic values and free speech, were particularly egregious. |
|
With your support, we can amplify voices that are often suppressed and spread the word about the urgent issues of censorship and surveillance.
Consider making a modest donation — just $5, or whatever amount you can afford. Your contribution will empower us to reach more people, educate them about these pressing issues, and engage them in our collective cause. Thank you for considering a contribution. Each donation not only supports our operations but also strengthens our efforts to challenge injustices and advocate for those who cannot speak out.
Thank you.
|
Alberta activates contingency mail delivery plan
“I know three families that have gone to Canada.”: Locals Say Haitians Are Hoofing It Out Of Springfield After Trump Win
MAiD In Alberta: Province surveying Albertans about assisted suicide policies
Can’t afford Rent? Groceries for your kids? Trudeau says suck it up and pay the tax!
-
ESG2 days ago
Can’t afford Rent? Groceries for your kids? Trudeau says suck it up and pay the tax!
-
Brownstone Institute2 days agoThe Most Devastating Report So Far
-
Aristotle Foundation1 day agoToronto cancels history, again: The irony and injustice of renaming Yonge-Dundas Square to Sankofa Square
-
International1 day agoEuthanasia advocates use deception to affect public’s perception of assisted suicide
-
armed forces21 hours agoJudge dismisses Canadian military personnel’s lawsuit against COVID shot mandate
-
Addictions1 day agoBC Addictions Expert Questions Ties Between Safer Supply Advocates and For-Profit Companies
-
Business2 days agoCarbon tax bureaucracy costs taxpayers $800 million
-
Business13 hours agoCBC’s business model is trapped in a very dark place