October 15, 2024– A newly leaked video from May 2019 revives concerns about government overreach, including its attack on free speech as Vice President Kamala Harris seems to dream of using the DOJ as a weapon to silence government threats of speech. Harris, speaking at the NAACP’s ‘Fight for Freedom Fund’ dinner in Detroit, pledged to “double the civil rights division” of the DOJ and to direct law enforcement to “fight extremism”, including calling social media platforms responsible for what they permit on their pages.
“We will put the Department of Justice of the United States back in the business of justice,” Harris said, promising to hold platforms accountable for what she called “hate infiltrating their platforms.” Harris added, “If you don’t police your platforms, we are going to hold you accountable.” This bold statement has sparked renewed concerns about the government’s role in regulating free speech, with critics accusing Harris of aspiring to dictate what speech is acceptable under the guise of combating extremism.
Government Collusion with Big Tech Companies
Such worries are not unfounded. It has become clear in recent years that the US government has been conspiring with tech titans to censor certain types of speech. It was partly brought out through studies of the social media powerhouses such as Twitter, Facebook and Google and how these companies partnered with government agencies to block messages in the name of “disinformation” or “hate speech”.
For instance, the Twitter Files, internal emails released by journalists such as Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss, revealed that government officials like the FBI were frequently messaging Twitter about what content to block. These notifications typically included flagging of posts regarding political scandals, COVID-19, and other divisive issues. The government would report them to Twitter, which subsequently removed, flagged or blocked certain pieces of content.
The other example involved Facebook, which revealed that Mark Zuckerberg’s website drew on the government during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic to ban posts that expressed alternative opinions about the virus or doubted the efficacy of vaccines. The tensions between this US government and Big Tech challenge the distinction between the business practices of private firms and state censorship.
This amalgamation of government and private censorship has prompted claims that the government is outsourcing its own crackdown on free speech, without taking any of the rights afforded by the First Amendment. If the state cannot get its critics on the rails, it looks like it is pushing private sector firms into stoking the pot.
The 2024 Election and Directive 5240.01(s)
What’s especially troubling in the wake of these revelations is the recent release of Department of Defense Directive 5240.01, which empowers military “defense intelligence components” to assist state and local law enforcement by using such resources as lethal force in an emergency. It’s an order a month before 2024 presidential election, where civil tensions and potential protests are expected to run high.
Critics have not missed the timing. Others are remarking that the federal government might enforce the new order to block criticism if there are mass protests or challenges to the election results. The order also specifies that soldiers are permitted to assist the law enforcement forces in cases of life-threatening circumstances, including “instances where such force will lead to the death or grave bodily harm”.
This new policy has been viewed as risky, insofar as the administration might use the rule to curtail political demonstrations and take away First Amendment freedoms in the weeks before the election. They even rumored that the order would be used to harass supporters of political candidates, including ex-president Donald Trump, seeing as the DOJ now has a “domestic extremism” focus in the wake of the January 6 Capitol riot.
Weaponizing Government Agencies
Harris’ address in 2019 is also seen as one part of a trend in the Democratic Party in which leaders such as Hillary Clinton, Antony Blinken and John Kerry have all called for greater control of speech and information. Clinton even admitted that free speech is a barrier to the advancement of climate change and public health policies, as Democrats also worry that “disinformation” will undermine their agenda.
Harris’ chants of using the DOJ to attack speech occur just as the government is looking to censor content on the internet. The fact that Directive 5240.01 is being used in such a politically charged context has further fuelled speculation that free speech and civil rights may soon face a severe repression.
The risk among opponents is that a Democratic government would mobilize military, police and big tech to ensure that disagreeable voices are silenced. Already, both* the UK and France* have cracked down on certain types of speech, and many fear that the US could do the same if the current trend persists.
Just before the 2024 election, concerns about weaponizing government departments to silence and suppress criticism mount. The 2019 comments of Harris – and the US government’s history of cooperation with big tech in order to suppress speech – makes me wonder about the future of America’s First Amendment. With the implementation of the Department of Defense Directive 5240.01, the distinction between national security, free speech and civil liberties appears ever more porous.
See full copy [here] (https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/524001p.PDF) for information about Directive 5240.01.
