by – L. Richardson
Defenders of free speech rights are sounding the alarm over a bipartisan vote to expand CISA’s budget, igniting concerns about government overreach and suppression of online discourse. This National Opposition to CISA Expansion and Speech Suppression underscores the pressing need for Resistance to CISA Budget Increase and Clyde’s Stand for Free Speech.
The controversial move comes amid a fierce Critique of Supreme Court Censorship Endorsement and Condemnation of Bipartisan Censorship Support, signaling the Biden Administration’s Censorship Agenda to crackdown on social media freedom through collusion with tech companies 24. As voices unite in Defense of Social Media Freedom and Opposition to Government-Big Tech Collusion, the stage is set for an intense battle over Advocacy for CISA Funding Reduction and Challenges to First Amendment Infringements underpinning this Nationalistic Defense of Speech Rights 1234.
National Sovereignty Compromised: The Expansion of CISA’s Mandate
Examination of CISA’s evolution from a cybersecurity entity to a tool of political control, encroaching upon free speech.
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) was established in 2018 to secure the nation’s critical infrastructure, including election systems 5 [14]. However, recent developments have raised concerns about CISA’s expanding mandate and its potential impact on free speech and democratic principles. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruling suggests that CISA has overstepped its boundaries by actively engaging with social media platforms to influence their content moderation policies 6.
The court alleged that CISA “used its frequent interactions with social media platforms to push them to adopt more restrictive policies on election-related speech” 6 [15]. Furthermore, the judges stated that CISA went beyond merely relaying flagged social media posts from state and local election officials to tech companies; instead, it determined the veracity of the information and instructed companies on whether to censor or promote the content 6. This encroachment on free speech has raised alarms among civil liberties advocates and those concerned about government overreach.
Historical perspective on how similar governmental overreaches have undermined democratic principles.
The expansion of CISA’s mandate and its potential impact on free speech resonate with historical instances where elected leaders have subverted democratic norms and institutions. Incumbents have often sought to eliminate checks and balances, incapacitate institutions like courts, and undermine pillars of democracy such as freedom of expression. The government’s use of colonial-era sedition laws to silence dissent, harassment of journalists, and internet shutdowns have cast a long shadow on free speech in various countries.
Moreover, authoritarianism’s legacy can persist and threaten political rights and civil liberties even after transitions to democracy 8. Unresolved issues like corruption, racial discrimination, and the consequences of authoritarian regimes’ actions can continue to undermine democratic institutions and processes 8. The current concerns surrounding CISA’s role in content moderation and potential infringement on free speech echo these historical patterns of democratic erosion and the consolidation of power by elected leaders or government agencies.
Bipartisan Betrayal: The Flawed Support for CISA
Critical analysis of the bipartisan approval to maintain and even increase CISA’s budget amidst clear evidence of its role in speech suppression.
In a concerning move, a significant number of both Republicans and Democrats, 104 and 198 respectively, voted to uphold a proposed budget increase for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) 9. This bipartisan support for CISA’s expanded funding comes despite mounting evidence of the agency’s overreach and involvement in suppressing dissenting opinions on social media platforms 9.
Representative Andrew Clyde of Georgia, a vocal critic of CISA’s actions, proposed an amendment to freeze the agency’s funding at its 2024 level, effectively reducing the budget by just over 2% 9. During a forceful speech on the House floor, Clyde highlighted CISA’s misuse of resources to censor free speech, presenting a compelling case for reining the agency’s activities 9. However, his amendment was ultimately rejected, indicating the uphill battle those advocating for change within the system 9 faced.
Discuss the disturbing alliance between major political parties and its implications for public trust and freedom.
Despite well-documented concerns about the agency’s role in censorship, the bipartisan vote to sustain and even increase CISA’s budget raises alarming questions about the priorities of both major political parties. This alliance between Republicans and Democrats on an issue that directly impacts free speech rights and the integrity of public discourse is a stark betrayal of the principles enshrined in the First Amendment.
Polls consistently show that political parties are among the least trusted institutions in the United States 10. While some skepticism towards parties may be healthy, the bipartisan support for CISA’s expanded budget, in the face of clear evidence of its involvement in speech suppression, further erodes public trust in the political establishment 10. It reinforces the perception that both parties are more concerned with consolidating power and controlling narratives than upholding fundamental democratic values.
Moreover, this bipartisan betrayal has far-reaching implications for the freedom of expression and the ability of citizens to engage in open and honest discourse 9. By enabling CISA’s activities, which have been accused of encouraging censorship on social media platforms, both parties effectively endorse the suppression of dissenting voices and manipulate public discourse 9. This is a direct threat to the principles of free speech and the foundation of a healthy democracy, where diverse perspectives and robust debate are essential for informed decision-making.
Case Studies: The Real Impact of CISA on Free Speech
This is an in-depth look at instances where CISA’s actions have directly infringed upon free speech, focusing on controversial collaborations with tech companies.
CISA has been “working with federal partners to mature a whole-of-government approach” to curbing alleged misinformation and disinformation 11 [16]. This approach involved creating an anti-misinformation “rapid response team” capable of physically deploying across the United States 11. When CISA and the Biden Administration were sued in federal court over these censorship activities, CISA moved its operation to a CISA-funded non-profit, implicitly admitting that its actions were unconstitutional 11. CISA even wanted to use this non-profit as a mouthpiece to “avoid the appearance of government propaganda” 11 [16]. Members of CISA’s own advisory committee expressed concerns that it was “only a matter of time before someone realizes we exist and starts asking about our work” 11 [16].
Exploration of incidents, possibly like the Hunter Biden laptop story or election misinformation campaigns, as tangible examples of censorship.
The suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story exemplifies CISA’s role in censorship 12 [17]. FBI officials met with Twitter and Facebook executives before the 2020 election, warning them about potential Russian disinformation involving fake documents 12. This led both companies to suppress posts about the controversial New York Post story on Hunter Biden’s laptop 12. Conservatives accused tech companies and federal agencies like CISA of conspiring to censor speech and rig the election 12. Subsequent investigations revealed CISA’s involvement, making it a “pariah on the right” 12. Stunned by the backlash, CISA stopped working with social media platforms to combat misinformation, fracturing the “symbiotic relationship between the government and the social media companies” 12 [18].
Moreover, evidence emerged of CISA’s “censorship laundering” through its work with the “Election Integrity Partnership” (EIP), a group of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) 13 [19]. EIP analysts and stakeholders, including CISA, identified and nominated content to be flagged as misinformation, conducted research to make the case, forwarded flagged content to social media platforms, and corresponded with platforms for status updates 13. The process was open to interpretation and potential abuse, with even innocuous statements being flagged as “conspiracy theories” 13. The selection of flagged content was capricious, driven by what individuals happened to stumble upon 13. EIP and its partners were a “foundational part of the process that led to censoring social media content of Americans” 13.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that CISA likely violated the First Amendment by “push[ing] social media platforms to adopt more restrictive policies on election-related speech” 6 [20]. The court alleged that CISA went beyond relaying flagged posts to tech companies, instead determining the veracity of the information and instructing companies on whether to censor or promote the content 6. The platforms’ censorship decisions were based on CISA’s determinations and the policies CISA pressured them to adopt 6. While CISA claims it does not censor speech, the court’s ruling highlights the agency’s role in facilitating censorship through its collaborations with tech companies 6.
Conclusion
The disturbing bipartisan support for CISA’s expanded budget and the Supreme Court’s controversial decision raise grave concerns about preserving free speech rights in the digital age. Despite mounting evidence of CISA’s overreach in content moderation and its involvement in suppressing dissenting voices on social media platforms, many lawmakers from both parties have betrayed the principles of the First Amendment.
As the guardians of democracy, it is incumbent upon all citizens to remain vigilant against any attempt, whether by government agencies or political establishments, to undermine the fundamental right to free speech. We must resolutely defend open discourse, diverse perspectives, and the free exchange of ideas, for they are the lifeblood of a healthy society.
FAQs
1. Does censorship infringe on the right to free speech?
Censorship can infringe on free speech, protected under the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from limiting speech. However, there are specific, limited scenarios where the government can censor, such as in public schools, libraries, and broadcast media.
2. Can you provide an example of government censorship?
One common form of government censorship involves the regulation of pornography, particularly child pornography, which is illegal and universally censored. Another example is military censorship, which includes securing military intelligence and tactics from potential enemies to prevent espionage.
3. Is the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) still a part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)?
Yes, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) remains an operational component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) [21].
4. What are the justifications for censorship?
Censorship can serve important roles, such as protecting individuals from slander and violent threats or safeguarding national security by preventing sensitive information from reaching hostile entities.
References
[1] – https://supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/free-speech/
[2] – https://www.freedomforum.org/first-amendment-supreme-court-cases/
[4] – https://elfaro.net/en/202103/columns/25336/the-perils-of-unchecked-power
[5] – https://www.cisa.gov/topics/election-security
[6] – https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/10/03/cisa-5thcircuit-election-injunction/
[7] – https://www.brookings.edu/articles/understanding-democratic-decline-in-the-united-states/
[9] – https://reclaimthenet.org/bipartisan-vote-blocks-cisa-budget-cut-despite-speech-censorship-concerns
[10] – https://protectdemocracy.org/work/how-much-should-we-trust-political-parties/
[11] – https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-03/2024_0311_fy_2025_budget_in_brief.pdf
[12] – https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/24/public-trust-in-government-1958-2024/
[14] – CISA Hosts Seventh Cyber Storm Exercise with Government, Industry, and International Partners | CISA. https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/08/14/cisa-hosts-seventh-cyber-storm-exercise-government-industry-and-international
[15] – Federal Court Bars’ Nerve Center of Government Censorship’ From Influencing Social Media Platforms. https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/federal-court-bars-nerve-center-government-censorship-influencing-social-media-platforms/
[16] – House Weaponization Committee: Biden admin ‘colluded’ with Big Tech, ‘facilitated the censorship of Americans’ – The Clinton County Voice – Clinton County IL News. https://clintoncountyvoice.com/2023/06/27/house-weaponization-committee-biden-admin-colluded-with-big-tech-facilitated-the-censorship-of-americans/
[17] – Thiessen, M. (2022). Last Jan. 6, our institutions held – except the media. The Hutchinson News, (), A.7.
[18] – How the GOP muzzled the coalition fighting foreign propaganda on Twitter, Facebook, and beyond. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/gop-muzzled-quiet-coalition-fought-foreign-propaganda-rcna103373?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma&taid=654e3e726fd6760001b4887b&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
[19] – MEDIA ADVISORY: Subcommittee Chairman Bishop Announces New Hearing on DHS Censorship Laundering Scheme – Committee on Homeland Security. https://homeland.house.gov/2023/12/07/media-advisory-subcommittee-chairman-bishop-announces-new-hearing-on-dhs-censorship-laundering-scheme/
[20] – Top Biden Agency Overstepped First Amendment, Court Finds – Crystal Clear News. https://crystalclearnews.com/top-biden-agency-overstepped-first-amendment-court-finds/
[21] – FAQ: most common questions landlords ask | Weekend Landlords. https://www.weekendlandlords.com/faq-2/
[23] – https://reclaimthenet.org/bipartisan-vote-blocks-cisa-budget-cut-despite-speech-censorship-concerns
[24] – https://reclaimthenet.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Screenshot-2024-06-28-at-17.21.jpg.jpg
[25] – https://reclaimthenet.org/supreme-court-biden-tech-censorship-murthy-v-missouri
[27] – https://reclaimthenet.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Screenshot-2024-06-28-at-16.57.jpg.jpg
[29] – https://reclaimthenet.org/dhs-cisa-agency-flagged-hunter-biden-laptop-story-on-day-one
Critical Thinking Dispatch 
Leave a comment