The War against Free Expression, Part II

Yesterday, I offered some comments on the ongoing war against free expression. I emphasized the battles taking place in once-Great Britain, but, as you know, the vaunted European Union is all-in against free expression in America.

After all, a European commissioner, by the name of Thierry Breton, threatened Elon Musk for daring to broadcast an interview with an American presidential candidate, Donald Trump.

The EU walked back the proposal when it received a less than rousing welcome, but, truth be told, the EU has no problem interfering in our elections. 

Appalling does not do it justice. I will recall that I recommended that we reconsider our commitment to NATO. The EU has obviously gotten too full of itself. Time for a course correction. They might learn that they are not exactly equal partners when it comes to defense.

The situation in Europe is one thing. The situation on our own shores is quite another. And, it is hardly encouraging.

Law professor Jonathan Turley explained the situation in an essay for The Hill.

Turley remarked that the Biden administration had nothing to say about Thierry Breton’s effort to interfere in our elections. This is, to say the least, alarming. It is a radical threat to free speech, coming from our government.

Turley wrote:

The response from the Biden administration was not a presidential statement warning any foreign government from seeking to limit our rights or even Secretary of State Antony Blinken calling the EU ambassador to his office for an expression of displeasure.

That’s because Biden and Harris are not displeased with but supportive of letting the EU do what they are barred from doing under our Constitution. This administration is arguably the most anti-free speech government since John Adams signed the Sedition Act. They have supported a massive system of censorship, blacklisting and targeting of opposing voices. Democratic members have given full-throated support for censorship, including pushing social media companies to expand in areas ranging from climate control to gender identity.

So, after only 80 years, our leaders are silent as a European government threatens to reduce our political speech to the lowest common denominator, which they will set according to their own values. Not a shot will be fired as Biden and Harris simply yield our rights to a global governing system.

As for the Democratic effort to impose mind control, consider the flagrant hostility to Elon Musk. After all, the left controls content on Meta and on Google. If it can regain control over Twitter, it can have a near-monopoly of the marketplace of ideas.

Turley explained:

After Elon Musk bought Twitter and dismantled most of the company’s censorship program, many on the left went bonkers. 

That fury only increased when Musk released the “Twitter files,” confirming the long-denied coordination and support by the government in targeting and suppressing speech.

In response, Hillary Clinton and other Democratic figures turned to Europe and called upon them to use their Digital Services Act to force censorship against Americans.

Put it all together and Turley concludes that the Biden administration is seriously opposed to the first amendment.

This administration is arguably the most anti-free speech government since John Adams signed the Sedition Act. They have supported a massive system of censorship, blacklisting and targeting of opposing voices. Democratic members have given full-throated support for censorship, including pushing social media companies to expand in areas ranging from climate control to gender identity.

His solution is a new law for America.

I previously called for legislation to get the U.S. government out of the censorship business domestically. We also need new legislation to keep other countries from regulating the speech of our own citizens and companies. While this country has long threatened retaliation in combatting market barriers in other countries, we need to do the same thing for free speech. We need a federal law that opposes the intrusion of the Digital Services Act into the U.S.

Surely, this is an excellent idea. One suspects that a ton of Silicon Valley lobbying has made its passage more unlikely.