Commentary: Stanford, Silicon Valley, and the Rise of the Censorship Industrial Complex

This summer the Supreme Court will rule on a case involving what a district court called perhaps “the most massive attack against free speech” ever inflicted on the American people. In Murthy v. Missouri, plaintiffs ranging from the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana to epidemiologists from Harvard and Stanford allege that the federal government violated the First Amendment by working with outside groups and social media platforms to surveil, flag, and quash dissenting speech – characterizing it as mis-, dis- and mal-information – on issues ranging from COVID-19 to election integrity.

The case has helped shine a light on a sprawling network of government agencies and connected NGOs that critics describe as a censorship industrial complex. That the U.S. government might aggressively clamp down on protected speech, and, certainly at the scale of millions of social media posts, may constitute a recent development. Reporting by RCI and other outlets – including Racket News’ new “Censorship Files” series, and continuing installments of the “Twitter Files” series to which it, Public, and others have contributed – and congressional probes continue to reveal the substantial breadth and depth of contemporary efforts to quell speech that authorities deem dangerous. But the roots of what some have dubbed the censorship industrial complex stretch back decades, born of an alliance between government, business, and academia that Democrat Sen. William Fulbright termed the “military-industrial-academic-complex” – building on President Eisenhower’s formulation – in a 1967 speech.

Read More

Commentary: Biden FCC Threatens Free Speech by Restoring Internet Regulations

Jessica Rosenworcel Net Neutrality

The Federal Communications Commission has revived regulations for “net neutrality.” According to FCC chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, “the action we take here is good for consumers, public safety, national security and network investment.” The people have room for doubt and the “neutrality” concept requires some explanation.

The internet developed in fine style long before any such regulation appeared, but in 2015, the FCC reclassified Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from “information services,” to “common carrier services.” The government treated an innovative new technology like a public utility monopoly, in effect turning back the clock to the Communications Act of 1934.

Read More

Commentary: VDARE’s Fight Against Letitia James Is Our Fight, Too

New York AG

For all its gesticulations about “free speech,” the conservative mainstream often plays a supporting role in America’s censorship regime. It’s a two-step dance: The Right styles itself as the sworn defender of free speech and the mortal enemy of censorship while simultaneously downplaying or outright ignoring brazen censorship of speech that ventures a bit too far outside the Overton window. By claiming to defend all free speech in principle but only defending some in practice, the Right concedes, by omission, that certain ideas fall outside the bounds of free expression — and that it’s perfectly appropriate (or, at least, not particularly objectionable) to bring the full force of regime power to bear against any individual so unwise as to express them.

Read More

SEC Rules Tech Company Can’t Block Free Speech Resolution

Apple Store

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) declined on Tuesday Apple’s request to block votes for a “free speech” shareholder resolution.

The resolution, submitted by the American Family Association (AFA), would have Apple investigate how it curates content and issue a report to address concerns that company policies enable restricting speech based on viewpoint. The SEC shot down Apple’s bid to exclude the resolution from the ballot at its upcoming 2024 Annual Meeting of Shareholders, ensuring a vote on the resolution in the spring, according to the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

Read More

Commentary: Pediatrician Is Fighting Back as Her Medical License Is Being Investigated for COVID-19 ‘Misinformation’

Renata Moon

Once she saw the data, pediatrician Dr. Renata Moon knew she had to speak out. Over her more than 20 years of practicing medicine, including more than 17 years of treating high-risk patients, Dr. Moon had never been anti-vaccine—until she saw what was happening with the COVID-19 vaccines.

In Dr. Moon’s words: “As the data rolled out on the vaccine and COVID-19, it became clear that children had basically a zero risk of death from infection by COVID [whereas] they have potential serious risk from taking the COVID-19 shots.”

Read More