The Evolution of Free Speech Suppression in the U.S.: From Nixon to Biden-Harris

 

Tracy Turner

Understanding the trajectory of free speech in the United States within its rich historical context is crucial. It unveils a troubling trend toward increasing suppression and surveillance. Over the decades, successive administrations have expanded monitoring and controlling public discourse. Various U.S. administrations, alongside pivotal legislative and covert programs, have transformed free speech into a regulated and often suppressed entity. Key elements in this transformation include FBI COINTELPRO, CIA Operation Mockingbird, the (George W. Bush) National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) sections 1021 and 1022, and the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).

Nixon and Cronies

President Richard Nixon's tenure (1969-1974) marked a significant shift in government surveillance practices. Nixon's administration became notorious for its extensive use of surveillance and illegal activities, exemplified by the Watergate scandal. The 1970s White House Plumbers, covert burglars tasked with preventing leaks, engaged in wiretapping and burglary, revealing Nixon's readiness to ignore civil liberties for political gain (Bernstein, 1974). Nixon targeted journalists, activists, and politicians critical of his administration, aiming to intimidate and suppress dissent (Cohen, 1993). Nixon's era set a profound precedent for future administrations, demonstrating early how surveillance could be leveraged for political control and dissent suppression. This lasting impact should raise concerns and instill a deep awareness about the enduring effects of surveillance on free speech.

FBI COINTELPRO

The FBI's COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program), initiated in the late 1950s and continuing into the 2000s, played a crucial role in stifling political dissent. Under J. Edgar Hoover, COINTELPRO targeted a wide range of individuals and groups, including civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr., leftist groups, and other organizations perceived as subversive (Church, 1976). Tactics included illegal wiretaps, harassment, and dissemination of false information designed to discredit and disrupt its targets (Gage, 2009). The program's exposure highlighted a systematic government effort to suppress political activism and manipulate public perception, illustrating the abuse of surveillance to curtail free speech and dissent (Garrow, 1986).

CIA Operation Mockingbird

CIA Operation Mockingbird, which began in the late 1940s and continued into the 2000s, represents a significant and far-reaching aspect of government control over media and public discourse. This covert operation involved the CIA's efforts to influence and control media outlets and journalists, using them to promote the agency's objectives and suppress damaging information (Wilford, 2013). Operation Mockingbird's influence extended across both domestic and international media, raising concerns about the global impact of U.S. government control over public discourse. By recruiting journalists and manipulating media narratives, the CIA engaged in censorship, controlling the flow of information to advance government agendas (Johnson, 2007). The operation's exposure underscored how the government could covertly manipulate public discourse, affecting media coverage to serve its interests. This media manipulation also had significant implications for free speech, limiting the public's access to diverse and critical viewpoints.

George W. Bush (Dick Cheney) and Cronies

The September 11 attacks in 2001 marked a transformative period in U.S. surveillance and control measures under President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. The USA PATRIOT Act, enacted in October 2001, significantly expanded government surveillance powers. It allowed for increased wiretaps, access to personal records, and communications monitoring with minimal judicial oversight (Harris, 2002). This Act institutionalized extensive surveillance measures justified by national security concerns but also raised serious concerns about the erosion of civil liberties and the potential impact on free speech. The Patriot Act's provisions, such as the broad definition of 'domestic terrorism' and expanding the government's surveillance powers, have significant implications for free speech and civil rights. These provisions and their implications on free speech and civil rights should be discussed in detail to provide a comprehensive view of the Bush-Cheney administration's approach to surveillance and its impact on free speech.

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Sections 1021 and 1022

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2012 further expanded government authority concerning surveillance and detention. Sections 1021 and 1022, signed into law by President Obama, permitted the indefinite detention of individuals suspected of terrorism-related activities, including U.S. citizens, without trial (Tucker, 2012). Section 1021 authorized the military to detain individuals indefinitely without charge, raising concerns about the erosion of due process and constitutional protections (Cohen, 2012). Section 1022 specifically addressed the detention of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, allowing for their detention without trial if they were 'deemed' involved in terrorism. These provisions marked a significant expansion of government power, affecting civil liberties and free speech by broadening the scope of surveillance and detention. The impact of these provisions on free speech is significant, as they create a climate of fear and self-censorship, where individuals may refrain from expressing dissenting or controversial views for fear of being labeled as a threat. These measures' legal and ethical implications are complex and contentious, and they continue to be a subject of debate and concern.

Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), passed in September 2001, authorized the President to use force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks and those who harbored them (Congress, 2001). However, the AUMF has been abused to justify a broad range of military and surveillance activities, including the monitoring of individuals suspected of terrorism. The AUMF's broad language allowed for expansive interpretations of terrorist threats, contributing to a surveillance environment where individuals could be monitored and targeted based on suspicion rather than concrete evidence. This misuse of the AUMF has significantly impacted free speech, as it has created a climate of fear and self-censorship, where individuals may refrain from expressing dissenting or controversial views for fear of being labeled as a threat. This broad interpretation of the AUMF should raise the alarm and make the audience aware of the misuse of power and its chilling effect on free speech.

Patriot Act

The USA PATRIOT Act, enacted in 2001, expanded government surveillance and investigative powers, potentially suppressing free speech by increasing the ability to monitor individuals and access personal records. It allows for broad data collection and surveillance, which critics argue can deter free expression and foster a climate of fear. The PATRIOT Act also includes provisions for detention without cause and limits access to legal counsel or legal recourse, contributing to concerns about civil liberties. These provisions can have a chilling effect on free speech, as individuals may fear their communications being monitored and may self-censor to avoid potential repercussions. Unlike the NDAA Sections 1021 and 1022, which focus on indefinite detention, and the AUMF, which authorizes military force, the PATRIOT Act focuses explicitly on enhancing domestic surveillance and law enforcement capabilities, further highlighting the government's increasing control over public discourse.

Obama and Cronies

President Barack Obama's administration (2009-2017) continued the trend of surveillance expansion, though it made some attempts to address privacy concerns. The Edward Snowden revelations in 2013 exposed the breadth of NSA surveillance, including the bulk collection of phone and email metadata (Greenwald, 2014). The USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 sought to address privacy concerns by limiting some bulk data collection practices but maintained substantial surveillance capabilities. A detailed discussion of the Act's provisions and their implications on free speech and civil liberties is necessary to provide a comprehensive view of the Obama administration's approach to surveillance.

Obama and Free Speech Suppression

President Obama's administration (2009-2017) marked a period of complex dynamics between surveillance, civil liberties, and public protest. Despite Obama's public rhetoric about democracy and civil rights, his presidency was plagued by significant expansions in surveillance and controversial measures against dissenting movements like Occupy Wall Street.

Surveillance Expansion and the Snowden Revelations

During Obama's presidency, the expansion of surveillance programs continued, driven in part by the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. The Edward Snowden revelations in 2013 exposed the extent of National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance, including the bulk collection of phone and email metadata, which profoundly impacted public awareness and government response to surveillance (Greenwald, 2014). These disclosures highlighted the ongoing tension between national security measures and individual privacy rights and sparked a global debate on the balance between security and civil liberties. In response to privacy concerns, the Obama administration enacted the USA FREEDOM Act of 2015 to curtail some aspects of bulk data collection (Cox, 2015). However, while the Act made some changes, it retained substantial surveillance capabilities. This compromise balanced security imperatives and privacy reforms but did not fundamentally alter the expansive surveillance framework established during his tenure.

Occupy Wall Street and Suppression of Dissent

The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement, which began in 2011, represented a significant form of grassroots dissent against economic inequality and corporate influence. Under Obama's administration, law enforcement and the federal government responded aggressively and controversially.

• Violence and Aggressive Policing: Law enforcement met Occupy Wall Street protests with substantial action, including the use of excessive force. Reports emerged of violent confrontations between police and protesters, with instances of tear gas, rubber bullets, and physical assaults (Waldman, 2012). The aggressive policing raised severe concerns about eroding civil liberties and the right to peaceful assembly.
• False Arrests and Civil Rights Violations: Numerous documented cases of false arrests and unlawful detentions occurred during the Occupy protests. These instances involved arresting individuals without proper justification or due process, highlighting severe infringements on civil liberties (Goldstein, 2013). The federal and local responses included efforts to dismantle protest encampments and limit protestors' activities through legal and extralegal means.
• Media and Protester Targeting: Authorities and corporate interests took steps to discredit the Occupy movement by targeting media coverage and public perception. The media faced pressure to downplay or distort coverage, and protestors were often portrayed negatively in news outlets (Parker, 2014). The suppression of accurate and sympathetic media narratives diminished public support for the movement and reduced its effectiveness.

Biden-Harris Administration

President Joe Biden's administration (2021-present) has faced scrutiny regarding the continuation and expansion of surveillance practices and their effects on free speech. Despite promises of greater transparency and protection of civil liberties, issues remain.

• Increased Surveillance Powers: The Biden administration has continued several surveillance practices and policies from previous administrations. While it has claimed to prioritize civil liberties, ongoing surveillance activities raise questions about whether they adequately balance security with privacy rights (Davis, 2022).
• Social Media Regulation and Misinformation: The Biden administration has addressed misinformation on social media platforms, leading to debates about potential overreach and its impact on free speech. Efforts to combat misinformation have raised concerns about censorship and the chilling effect on open discourse (Smith, 2023).
• Whistleblower Protections: Although the Biden administration has tried to improve protections for whistleblowers, concerns persist about treating individuals who expose government misconduct or overreach. The balance between national security and protecting those who speak out remains contentious (Johnson, 2023).

Warning: The progression of free speech suppression in the United States, from the Nixon era to the current Biden-Harris administration, signals a concerning shift towards prioritizing hate speech prosecutions over protecting public free speech. Each successive administration has continued to adopt and enhance control mechanisms, often citing national security or public order as rationales. The trajectory from Nixon's unlawful surveillance to the extensive surveillance tactics under Bush and the nuanced dynamics of the Obama and current Biden-Harris administrations emphasize the boiling frogs approach to Free Speech. The repercussions of favoring hate speech prosecutions over free speech on public discourse, dissent, and democratic values underscore the critical importance of defending free speech rights amidst escalating threats and government intrusion.

Kamela (Hate-Speech) Harris:

"So let us be clear: No one should be afraid that an abuser will use their private personal data — or that a person’s private personal data will be used against them. And all people deserve to use the Internet free from fear."

This statement is Orwellian for a few reasons:

1. Surveillance Implications: It acknowledges the fear of private data misuse but does not address how surveillance and data collection might contribute to such fears. The underlying reality is that the government and private entities often collect vast amounts of personal data, which could potentially be misused.
2. Doublethink: The reassurance that everyone deserves to use the internet free from fear while simultaneously acknowledging the threat of private data being used against individuals demonstrates a form of "doublethink"—holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously. It paints a picture of security and freedom while the mechanisms for ensuring such security could also be sources of fear and control.
3. Vague Assurance: The statement provides a broad and comforting assurance without delving into the specifics of how these protections will be enforced or how privacy concerns will be addressed in practice. This can be seen as an attempt to quell dissent and create an illusion of safety and control without addressing deeper issues.

In essence, this Orwellian aspect lies in the juxtaposition of reassuring rhetoric with underlying concerns about privacy and data misuse, which highlights the tension between public assurances and the reality of surveillance and control. Harris is hellbent on strengthening hate-speech (thought-control) laws, which is entirely antithetical to Free Speech. This slippery slope is that they can just willy-nilly add things to their list, this is hate speech, that is hate speech, and you should fear life in prison and shut your mouth. In a democracy. Many of us cringe at the thought of another Trump Trump Presidency. Writing in Cheney or voting for Jill Stein only helps Trump. But it is worrisome to ponder... Trump is an Aggresive, Sick Authoritarian. Kamela Harris is a Security Obsessed, Hate-speech Obsessed, Passive-Aggressive Authoritarian (an Obama-persona in drag). Expect Occupy Wallstreet Policing, Hellfire Missiles shot from Drones into Weddings and Funerals, killing women and children. Expect a woman FBI Informant Spy on every street in every neighborhood. Expect Orwell-Harris, in every way that counts...

.

Tracy Turner was born into two extended families of bookworms - one horticultural and one petroleum industry. Semi-retired from IT, Corporate Analyst and Botanical Garden Plant Propagation. Among his many interests are all sciences, news, tracking political corruption, national and world events (corruption). Urges you to ask several USA IT professionals about web censorship; which is becoming rampant. Twitter, Facebook and Myspace are not free speech - they are places of monitoring, censoring and personal data harvesting. Also, just because you see your words in print online, it does not equate to "free speech". Do you believe Google and Bing blacklist Michael Taylor's online words as often as said censors blacklist your online "free speech"? If you love freedom, become active in corruption watch, exposure; free speech and freedom of the press activism.

References

Bernstein, C. (1974). All the President's Men. Simon & Schuster.

Church, J. (1976). The Senate Intelligence Committee Report on COINTELPRO.

Cohen, N. (1993). The Washington Post and Nixon: The Unseen History.

Cohen, S. (2012). National Defense Authorization Act and Indefinite Detention.

Congress. (2001). Authorization for Use of Military Force.

Cox, J. (2015). USA FREEDOM Act: A Step Toward Reform.

Davis, M. (2022). Surveillance Powers Under the Biden Administration.

Gage, B. (2009). The Legacy of COINTELPRO.

Garrow, D. (1986). The FBI and Martin Luther King Jr..

Goldstein, M. (2013). Civil Rights Violations During Occupy Wall Street.

Greenwald, G. (2014). No Place to Hide. Metropolitan Books.

Harris, A. (2002). The USA PATRIOT Act: Implications for Civil Liberties.

Johnson, J. (2007). CIA Media Manipulation and Operation Mockingbird.

Johnson, L. (2023). Whistleblower Protections under the Biden Administration.

Parker, M. (2014). Media and Occupy Wall Street: A Case Study.

Smith, R. (2023). Social Media Regulation and Free Speech.

Tucker, A. (2012). The NDAA and Civil Liberties.

Waldman, P. (2012). The Aggressive Policing of Occupy Wall Street.

Wilford, H. (2013). Operation Mockingbird and Media Control.