Free Speech in America. Whatever the Biden Administration Allows

 On April 27, 2022, President Biden’s Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Alejandro Mayorkas, told the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee that he had created a new “Disinformation Governance Board” (“DGB”) within DHS “focused on the spread of disinformation in minority communities ahead of the 2022 midterm elections.”

Joe Biden has decided he needs his own “Ministry of Truth,” if he is to have any hope in a particular “minority community” — the Hispanic community, where his approval rating has plummeted to 36%.

The idea is not new. Adolf Hitler had Joseph Goebbels as his “Minister of Propaganda.” Stalin had his Ministry of Truth. Putin has his today.

Biden’s original “Minister of Disinformation,” Press Secretary Jenn Psaki, has endorsed Mayorkas' rape of our First Amendment: "It sounds like the objective of the board is to prevent disinformation/misinformation from traveling around the country in a range of communities.”


Under our U.S. Constitution, Congress, presidents and judges have only those powers specifically granted to them by the Constitution. So, where does the Constitution say President Biden can establish “Disinformation Governance Board? A “Ministry of Truth?”

It doesn’t. And just to make doubly sure that it doesn’t, the First Amendment provides, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ..." 

That amendment has been interpreted by our Supreme Court as applying to Congress, the executive and the judiciary — even though it mentions only “Congress.” And at least since an 1857 Supreme Court decision, no creature of Congress or department of government has any power to do anything that Congress itself has no power to do.

 Even left-leaning Politico has expressed outrage at the Biden/Myorkas lurch toward censorship.

“Even President Barack Obama shortchanged the truth. Of 600 Obama statements PolitiFact checked during his administration, a quarter of them fell into the “red zone” of being false, mostly false, or “pants on fire” false.

“Not so long ago, 50 intelligence officials … assured the nation that the Hunter Biden laptop story bore “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” How did that work out?

“The idea that Covid could have come from a Chinese lab was similarly dismissed as disinformation; now it’s considered a legitimate possibility by the Biden administration.

“Meanwhile, we have documented proof (of Hunter Biden’s shenanigans) from The Washington Post that even Joe Biden can handle ….”

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) condemnation is scathing.

"The (DGB) amounts to a 'Department of Propaganda' from a government that appears fearful of its own citizens' free thoughts. …"

“This is the kind of thing that you see in dictatorships — this ‘Ministry of Truth,’ “They're afraid of the people. They're afraid that we might actually think for ourselves.”

Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis) has been no kinder.

“The Biden Administration has not proven itself to be a credible arbiter of ‘disinformation.’

“Instead, it has taken steps to silence information that is unflattering to this Administration under the guise of ‘disinformation.’

"For example, unnamed intelligence officials, the media, and social media platforms engaged in a coordinated effort to censor stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop and his questionable financial dealings under the false label of (Russian) ‘disinformation.’”

So, who exactly do the Democrats believe will engage in this “spread of disinformation in ‘minority communities’ ahead of the 2022 midterm elections?” Putin? Chairman Xi? Trump? Dastardly Republicans?

And why now? Desperation given Mr. Biden’s polling numbers? Fear of losing the House and Senate? Fear that Elon Musk means what he says about restoring free speech on Twitter?

That’s what Professor Johathan Turley believes:

“For years, the First Amendment distinction (government vs. non-government censorship) has been the focus of liberals who discovered a way to circumvent constitutional bans on censorship, by using companies like Twitter and Facebook.

Biden, Mayorkas and Psaki know that the “political” speech they are targeting, can’t be suppressed or cancelled, consistently with the First Amendment. But, “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Over the life of our Republic, the Supreme Court has held that certain, narrowly-defined classes of speech are beyond the protection of First Amendment: obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, fighting words, speech integral to criminal conduct, and speech that creates a clear and present danger.

Speech that hurts feeling (even if labeled "hate speech), misinformation, disinformation, erroneous speech and speech expressing disfavored views are all forms of protected speech (unless they are obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, etc). And opinions and/or beliefs never rise to the level of defamation or fraud.

In a free country, if you do not like my political opinions (or religious beliefs), your remedy is to refute them in the "marketplace of ideas." To rationally demonstrate by argument to your audience that your opinions are better than mine.

The totalitarian remedy is to shout down, "cancel,” and deny citizens the right to express political or religious opinions.

Freedom of speech, press and religion presuppose tolerance for the “objectionable” beliefs and opinions of others.

Copyright 2022, John Donald O'Shea

First Published in the Moline Dispatch and Rock Island Argus on May 22, 2022