In a determined effort to safeguard Americans' First Amendment rights, U.S. Representative Matt Gaetz (Fla.) is pushing for the swift passage of the Free Speech Protection Act, which he co-sponsored.
Gaetz expressed frustration with the bill's current state, citing its stall in three separate House committees, which impedes its progression to the floor for a vote.
“The bill has been stalled in three separate committees in the House of Representatives, making it hard to be moved to the floor,” Gaetz told the Florida Record. “Unfortunately, I’m not on any of those committees.”
Despite facing hurdles, Gaetz remains steadfast in his commitment to supporting the bill.
“This legislation is critically needed because it will stop federal bureaucrats from being able to tell social media companies to suppress constitutionally protected speech that they disagree with,” Gaetz said.
Gaetz remains a vocal advocate for the legislation, emphasizing its crucial role in curbing government interference in online expression.
“Americans must be able to freely express their opinions without fear of censorship,” Gaetz said. “I would like to see an end to the partnership forged by federal bureaucrats and the private sector to censor online speech. I will keep fighting to ensure digital spaces remain open and free from government overreach.”
The Free Speech Protection Act aims to prohibit executive branch employees and contractors from leveraging their positions to censor speech protected by the First Amendment. The proposed legislation also includes mandatory severe penalties for those found guilty of censoring speech within the executive branch.
In addition to these provisions, the bill introduces measures to promote transparency and accountability. It mandates frequent publicly accessible reports from the heads of executive branch agencies, detailing communications between these agencies and major tech companies. This move seeks to shed light on potential collaborations that may compromise free speech.
The Free Speech Protection Act also addresses concerns about the misuse of federal grant money. It includes provisions to ensure that such funds are not improperly utilized to label media organizations as sources of misinformation or disinformation, safeguarding the diversity of voices in the media landscape.
The bill was introduced by U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.).
“To prohibit Federal employees and contractors from directing online platforms to censor any speech that is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other purposes,” its full title reads.
The stalling of the bill comes despite recent revelations by a whistleblower that the Cyber Threat Intelligence League (CTIL) worked in concert with the federal government and military contractors to quell free speech efforts in which truthful dissent was removed from social media and other platforms.
The CTIL Files provide a deeper look into what is being called the “Censorship Industrial Complex,” a group of over 100 federal agencies and non-governmental organizations that have banded together to censor online platforms and the speech of everyday citizens, journalists and others.
“In the spring of 2020, CTIL began tracking and reporting disfavored content on social media, such as anti-lockdown narratives like ‘all jobs are essential,’ ‘we won’t stay home,’ and ‘open America now.’ CTIL created a law enforcement channel for reporting content as part of these efforts. The organization also did research on individuals posting anti-lockdown hashtags like #freeCA and kept a spreadsheet with details from their Twitter bios. The group also discussed requesting “takedowns” and reporting website domains to registrars,” Pulic reported on its Substack.
“CTIL’s approach to ‘disinformation’ went far beyond censorship. The documents show that the group engaged in offensive operations to influence public opinion, discussing ways to promote “counter-messaging,” co-opt hashtags, dilute disfavored messaging, create sock puppet accounts, and infiltrate private invite-only groups.”
Emails released by the House Judiciary Committee shed light on the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) involvement in censoring speech leading up to the 2020 election.
The emails unveil a partnership between DHS and Stanford University's Election Integrity Partnership (EIP).
The correspondence indicates that the EIP, established at the request of DHS, engaged in weekly communications in the run-up to the 2020 election.
The nature of those communications was allegedly tainted by bias in favor of Democrats.
The House Judiciary Committee reported that federal pressure exerted on social media companies, influenced by DHS and EIP, resulted in the suppression of truthful information and political opinions.
Concerns continue in regards to censorship persisting under the Biden administration.
The short-lived Disinformation Governance Board and revelations in the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit highlight the continuation of censorship efforts, extending beyond election-related matters to include COVID claims and other critical issues.
Earlier this year the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals partially upheld an injunction in Missouri v. Biden, acknowledging coercion leading to the censorship of protected speech.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed in November to hear the case of Missouri v. Biden, which addresses the alleged First Amendment violations resulting from censorship.
“These are the worst First Amendment violations in this nation's history and that this issue has to be addressed, and it has to be addressed by the highest court in the land,” Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said of the case.
The hearing date has yet to be scheduled, leaving the nation in anticipation of the court's deliberation.
The incident is one of a growing number of legal actions concerning free speech efforts.
Conservative media outlets The Daily Wire and The Federalist, along with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and the New Civil Liberties Alliance, recently filed a civil lawsuit against the U.S. Department of State, accusing it of unconstitutionally intervening in the American news media market.
The lawsuit alleges that the State Department, through its Global Engagement Center (GEC), is attempting to financially cripple disfavored press outlets by funding censorship technology and private censorship enterprises. The plaintiffs argue that these activities infringe upon their First Amendment rights.
The case specifically targets the State Department's collaboration with private entities, such as the Global Disinformation Index (GDI) and NewsGuard, accusing them of lacking statutory authority to fund tools that label conservative outlets as "risky."
That lawsuit raises concerns about government interference in media and digital censorship, highlighting potential threats to free speech rights and drawing attention to the evolving landscape of the American press.
That legal action follows similar concerns raised in a lawsuit by Consortium News against the U.S. and Newsguard Technologies, alleging government-backed censorship infringing on the First Amendment.