Top Points:
FBI Intensifies Censorship Coordination Ahead of 2024 Election: The FBI is increasing its collaboration with social media companies to censor information deemed as “foreign malign influence” (FMI) ahead of the 2024 election, following a DOJ memo from July 2024 and the Supreme Court ruling in Murthy v. Missouri.
Censorship of True Information in 2020: Before the 2020 presidential election, the FBI and other federal agencies falsely labeled the Hunter Biden laptop story as Russian disinformation, leading social media platforms to suppress the story despite its authenticity being confirmed by the FBI as early as November 2019.
Supreme Court Undermines First Amendment: The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling in Murthy v. Missouri allows the federal government to continue its collusion with Big Tech to censor unfavorable speech, even if it is factually correct, with Justice Samuel Alito warning that this decision is “blatantly unconstitutional.”
Full Report:
The FBI is intensifying its coordination with social media companies to censor information ahead of the 2024 presidential election, according to a recent memo from the Department of Justice (DOJ). This operation, which started quietly in February, is now ramping up.
A DOJ memo dated July 12, 2024, from Associate Deputy Attorney General George D. Turner, reveals that after the Supreme Court's ruling in Murthy v. Missouri, the Biden administration is pushing to censor what it deems “foreign malign influence” (FMI) information. The June decision severely undermined the First Amendment's right to free speech.
Following a Supreme Court stay in October 2023 of a 5th Circuit injunction that restricted FBI's collaboration with Big Tech, the DOJ began developing a standardized method for sharing FMI information with social media companies, claiming to consider First Amendment rights. By early February 2024, the FBI was actively sharing FMI threat information with these companies.
The memo states that the FBI will soon resume regular meetings with social media companies to brief them on potential FMI threats on their platforms. It also mentions that the DOJ's Justice Manual provides a framework for deciding when to disclose FMI operations, particularly those allegedly spreading “covert foreign government propaganda or disinformation.”
However, what the government labels as “foreign malign influence” is often not foreign at all.
Federal Agencies Censored True Information in 2020
In the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election, 51 former intelligence officials signed a letter falsely suggesting the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation. This letter was initiated by Antony Blinken, then a senior adviser to Biden’s campaign, as revealed by former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell.
The FBI had authenticated the laptop as early as November 2019, and it has been used as evidence in a federal gun case against Hunter Biden. Despite this, the FBI warned social media companies about supposed “Russian propaganda” and “hack-and-leak operations,” leading platforms like Twitter and Facebook to throttle the story’s reach. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg later admitted that Facebook suppressed the story following the FBI’s warnings.
Supreme Court Undermines First Amendment
In Murthy v. Missouri, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the federal government can continue colluding with Big Tech to censor speech it dislikes. Louisiana and Missouri had sued the Biden administration for coordinating with social media giants to censor posts deemed unfavorable, even when those posts contained factual information, as explained by The Federalist’s Shawn Fleetwood.
The court ruled the plaintiffs lacked standing. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, mischaracterized Facebook’s censorship as measures against foreign interference campaigns. There was nothing “foreign” about the Hunter Biden laptop, nor was it part of a Russian disinformation campaign.
Justice Samuel Alito, in his dissent, called the Biden administration's actions “blatantly unconstitutional” and warned of future regret for the Court’s failure to rule appropriately. Alito cautioned that the decision, along with a similar case (Vullo), sends a dangerous message that sophisticated coercive campaigns might succeed.
Original Story by Brianna Lyman, The Federalist
.png)
Comments