In the run-up to the 2024 election, the State Department is refusing to say whether it is speaking with Big Tech platforms to judge free conversation online.
The Federalist inquired about a new working class launched by the United States and Poland on Monday that seeks to combat Russian “disinformation” about its ongoing invasion of Ukraine. The company’s silence on the subject came after The Federalist inquired about it. Called the “Ukraine Communications Group (UCG)”, the system will include the two aforementioned countries and representatives from NATO states, and work to” organize messaging, promote accurate reporting of Russia’s whole- scale invasion, amplify Russian voices, and introduce Kremlin information manipulation”.
According to the Associated Press, James Rubin, the special envoy and coordinator for the State Department’s Global Engagement Center ( GEC ), was involved with and attended the UCG’s inaugural launch in Warsaw. As The Federalist’s Margot Cleveland previously explained, GEC “funded , the development of censorship equipment” that work to silence ( mostly conservative ) speech online and , “used  ,’government people to work as sales reps pitching … repression items to Big Tech.'”
Importantly, Rubin and the GEC are named plaintiffs in a , lawsuit , filed by The Federalist, The Daily Wire, and the state of Texas in December to prevent the federal government’s censorship activities.
A State Department spokesman claimed that the working group is a coordination mechanism between governments and wo n’t involve collaboration with private technology companies or social media companies when The Federalist inquired about whether the UCG or its participating members, including the State Department and GEC, will be collaborating with Big Tech and social media companies to censor what they deemed to be” Russian disinformation.
The representatives stated that the UCG member says intend to work together to bring our communication efforts together and ensure the world never forgets the Kremlin’s continued efforts to erase Ukraine from the image and subdue its citizens.
The State Department and GEC did not respond to The Federalist’s request for comment when asked whether they were or would be working with Big Tech and social media companies outside of their duties to the UCG.
In addition, the FBI href=”https://thefederalist.com/2024/05/08/fbi-confirms-its-restarting-online-censorship-efforts-ahead-of-2024-election/” target=”_blank” rel=”noreferrer noopener”>confirmed previous quarter to The Federalist that it had resumed communication with social media platforms in preparation for the 2024 election. When questioned about its alleged resumed communications with Big Tech, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency ( CISA ), another wing of the government’s censorship-industrial complex, declined to comment.
GEC’s Censorious Past
GEC has played a crucial role in the federal government’s coordinated effort to silence free conversation.
Through GEC, the State Department funded the , U. K. based Global Disinformation Index ( GDI), a therefore- called “disinformation” tracking firm “working to list and defund liberal media places”, including The Federalist. The content on these independent news sites is classified as disinformation, so brands wo n’t place advertisements on their websites, Victoria Marshall previously stated in these pages.
According to Marshall, the intention is to “financially harm separate publications and eventually prevent them from disseminating content.” Another non- leftist press outlets GDI’s 2022 “exclusion listing” labeled as the “riskiest” pushers of supposed “disinformation” contain The Daily Wire, RealClearPolitics, and Newsmax.
NewsGuard — another “disinformation” tracking group with a , history , of , assigning bogus ratings  , to news organizations— has also received federal grant money through an initiative sponsored by GEC.
An , interim report , released by House Republicans in November revealed GEC’s censorship efforts in U. S. elections. According to that analysis, GEC— along with CISA , — colluded with Stanford University to pressure Big Tech companies into censoring what they claimed to be “disinformation” during the 2020 contest.
At the heart of this operation was the , Election Integrity Partnership ( EIP),” a consortium of’ disinformation’ academics” spearheaded by the Stanford Internet Observatory that coordinated with DHS and GEC” to monitor and censor Americans ‘ online speech” ahead of the 2020 election.
Created “at the request” of CISA, EIP allowed federal officials to “launder]their ] censorship activities in hopes of bypassing both the First Amendment and public scrutiny”. As documented in the interim report, this operation , attempted , to censor” true information, jokes and satire, and political opinions” and submitted flagged posts from prominent conservative figures to Big Tech companies for censorship. Among those targeted were The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway and Sean Davis.
Will SCOTUS Help Save the Day?
Due to a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case known as Murthy v. Missouri in October, federal agencies were able to continue cooperating with Big Tech to censor posts they deemed inappropriate.
In that case, which was filed in 2022, the then- attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana alleged that the federal government ‘s , pressuring , of social media companies to censor free speech online constitutes a violation of the First Amendment. U. S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty , agreed and issued , a preliminary injunction on July 4, 2023, barring federal agencies from colluding with Big Tech to censor posts they do n’t like.
Despite being later upheld by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, SCOTUS lifted the 5th Circuit’s injunction without explanation in October. The court’s majority claimed that Doughty “erred in finding that State Department officials likely violated Plaintiffs ‘ First Amendment rights” ( The 5th Circuit’s injunction excluded the State Department ).
Associate Justice Samuel Alito expressed disapproval in his dissent, expressing concern that some people will interpret the high court’s “unfortunate” decision as allowing the government to use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the news media, which is increasingly predominate over its dissemination of news.
The government only enacts the injunction when it crosses the line and begins to coerce or enslave others in their freedom of speech rights, Alito wrote. Does the government believe that Executive Branch officials can engage in such behavior under the First Amendment? Does it have any plans for this to occur between now and the time this case is decided?
Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined Alito in dissention in their dissent.
This month, Murthy v. Missouri is expected to receive a final ruling from the Supreme Court.
Shawn Fleetwood is a University of Mary Washington graduate and a staff writer for The Federalist. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClear Health, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
