When direct censorship is unconstitutional, governments pressure intermediaries like tech companies, banks, or funded NGOs to suppress speech. These risk-averse middlemen comply to stay in the government's good graces, effectively doing the state's dirty work.
Related Insights
A US Diplomat argues that laws like the EU's DSA and the UK's Online Safety Act create a chilling effect. By imposing vague obligations with massive fines, they push risk-averse corporations to censor content excessively, leading to ridiculous outcomes like parliamentary speeches being blocked.
Cloudflare is fighting a $17M fine from an Italian body demanding global takedowns of websites within 30 minutes. This highlights a critical geopolitical risk: local governments attempting to enforce their censorship rules worldwide, treating US tech companies as a revenue source.
Similar to the financial sector, tech companies are increasingly pressured to act as a de facto arm of the government, particularly on issues like censorship. This has led to a power struggle, with some tech leaders now publicly pre-committing to resist future government requests.
Senator Ed Markey argues that government overreach succeeds partly because large media companies choose to "roll over" and pay fines or accept chilling effects rather than legally challenging threats to their First Amendment rights. This corporate capitulation is a key, overlooked factor in the erosion of free speech.
Non-governmental organizations, originally for relief and charity, were co-opted by intelligence agencies for statecraft. Their philanthropic cover provides deniability for covert operations like running supplies, money, and guns, making them effective fronts for what the speaker terms 'the dirtiest deeds.'
To circumvent First Amendment protections, the national security state framed unwanted domestic political speech as a "foreign influence operation." This national security justification was the legal hammer used to involve agencies like the CIA in moderating content on domestic social media platforms.
A "censorship industrial complex" of US-based NGOs, some government-funded, collaborates with EU and UK regulators. They instigate foreign enforcement actions against American companies to suppress speech, effectively outsourcing censorship to circumvent the First Amendment.
Unlike Big Tech firms with nearly unlimited resources to fight legal battles, traditional media companies are financially weaker than ever. This economic vulnerability makes them susceptible to government pressure, as they often cannot afford the protracted litigation required to defend their First Amendment rights.
While both the Biden administration's pressure on YouTube and Trump's threats against ABC are anti-free speech, the former is more insidious. Surreptitious, behind-the-scenes censorship is harder to identify and fight publicly, making it a greater threat to open discourse than loud, transparent attacks that can be openly condemned.
Anti-disinformation NGOs openly admit their definition of "disinformation" is not about falsehood. It includes factually true information that "promotes an adverse narrative." This Orwellian redefinition justifies censoring inconvenient truths to protect a preferred political outcome.