Some of you may recall the “Disinformation Governance Board” (DGB) that was proposed by the administration a while back. It flared briefly in the heavens before suffering a rapid demise. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), had suggested that Nina Jankowicz lead this organization. Of course, as everyone knows by now, she herself is a serial spreader of misinformation.
Officially the creation of this new federal agency has been “paused.” The board had been the subject of weeks of backlash from Republicans, libertarians and even some liberals, who likened the scheme to the Ministry of Truth from George Orwell’s classic novel “1984.”
Exactly what “paused” means is unclear. Knowing Washington and the corrupt bureaucrats who live there, it probably means that they will wait until they can sneak it back into existence during the dead of night. There is growing resistance to any such attempt.
The whole pitch by the administration was our national security required the existence of the DGB. This is the routine fallback position to try to club opposition into submission. They try to make it un-American to oppose any measure that is categorized as “national security.” This is a favorite scare tactic by elite politicians on both sides of the aisle.
A DHS spokesperson insisted the Board was “grossly and intentionally mischaracterized.” The spokesperson went on:
“It was never about censorship or policing speech in any manner. It was designed to ensure we fulfill our mission to protect the homeland, while protecting core Constitutional rights. However, false attacks have become a significant distraction from the Department’s vitally important work to combat disinformation that threatens the safety and security of the American people.”
The DHS said that concerns about a Ministry of Truth were a right-wing conspiracy theory. It seems like most such theories are turning out to be absolutely true these days. NPR supported this conspiracy narrative by running a headline about our supposedly exaggerated fears of this new board: “How DHS’s disinformation board fell victim to misinformation.”
But thanks to new whistleblower documents, we now see that a much broader scope for the Disinformation Governance Board was in the works. In other words the conspiracy theories were true again.
This is an interesting effect going on. More and more, people within our government are willing to stand up for what is right. Jim Jordan (R-OH) called the pause a win for free speech. However, without the whistleblower documents, it might have been short-lived. What is causing more people to risk their careers to oppose the communist takeover of our country?
With this attempted creation of a Ministry of Truth, they were seeking to regulate “disinformation related to the origins and effects of COVID-19 vaccines or the efficacy of masks,” for example. Further, the Department had been “working on plans to ‘operationalize’ its relationships with private social media companies to implement its public policy goals.”
Exactly what did operationalize mean? Senators Chuck Grassley and Josh Hawley, in a letter to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, laid out their concerns:
Collectively, whistleblower allegations and the documents we’ve reviewed raise concerns that DHS could be seeking an active role in coordinating the censorship of viewpoints that it determines, according to an unknown standard, to be “MDM” [mis-, dis-, or mal-information] by enlisting the help of social media companies and big tech. The DGB’s charter also specifically states that the DGB should “serv[e] as the Department’s internal and external point of contact for coordination with state, local, tribal, and territorial partners, the private sector, and nongovernmental actors regarding MDM.” The First Amendment of the Constitution was designed precisely so that the government could not censor opposing viewpoints – even if those viewpoints were false. DHS should not in any way seek to enlist the private sector to curb or silence opposing viewpoints. It is therefore imperative for DHS to provide additional clarity regarding its policies and procedures for identifying and addressing “MDM,” as well as its efforts to “operationalize” public-private partnerships and the steps it is taking to ensure that it does not infringe on the constitutional rights of American citizens.
The two senators specifically requested the following in formation and clarifications:
1. Has DHS at any point in time asked or suggested to Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, or any other social media executives that they should censor, flag, add context to, or remove any social media posts that it believes to be disinformation?
2. Has DHS at any point in time asked or suggested to Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, or any other social media executives that they suspend or ban the account(s) of individuals believed to be promoting information it believes to be disinformation?
3. Please provide all documents, including all written and electronic communications, memoranda, and organizational documents, related to the DGB from the point that DHS first considered establishing a DGB until the present.
4. Please provide all documents, including all written and electronic communications and memoranda, related to Nina Jankowicz’s selection as Executive Director of the DGB.
5. Please explain why, in your public statements and testimony before Congress, you have not fully explained the key role that the DGB was designed to play in coordinating among DHS components and engaging the assistance of the private sector.
6. Please explain how DHS defines “MDM” and how DHS decides whether a given news story or other piece of information fits its definition of “MDM.” Please identify who exactly is ultimately responsible for making this determination.
7. Please explain the criteria DHS uses when deciding whether to spend taxpayer resources addressing a particular news item or narrative that it has classified as “MDM.”
8. Please describe all safeguards that DHS has put in place to ensure that its efforts to counter the spread of disinformation do not infringe on Americans’ constitutional right to free speech.
9. Did DHS Under Secretary for the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans Robert Silvers meet with Twitter executives on April 28, 2022? If so, please provide a summary of topics discussed during the meeting.
10. Please define what DHS means by the phrase, “operationalizing public-private partnerships.”
Even the though the idea of a Ministry of Truth (Disinformation Governance Board) is antithetical to most people who truly believe in liberty, many people on the left side of the aisle want to suppress anything they do not agree with. A 2021 Pew Research Poll found that 76 percent of Democrats thought the Big Tech should take steps to restrict “false information” online, even if it limits freedom of information.
Of course, who gets to decide whether something is “false” is a bigger issue. The U.S. government doesn’t exactly have a stellar track record here. At one time many people thought the earth was flat. It was considered heresy by the Catholic Church to publicly state otherwise. We all know how that worked out.
The best approach is no censorship at all. Let competing viewpoints debate the issues. Eventually the truth usually prevails. It is unreal that in the United States, of all places, this has suddenly become controversial.
One of the most distressing things about the COVID hysteria of the last couple of years has been the suppression of badly needed dissenting voices. Any expert who proposed an effective, therapeutic solution to the virus was vilified, smeared and cancelled. No debate was allowed. How many people died needlessly to further the corrupt plans of people within the pharmaceutical complex? Wouldn’t a free, and robust discussion of all options have been best for the human race?
We must remain vigilant. The communists will try again to put a Ministry of Truth in place. All freedom loving people must be ready to rail against such an enterprise. Freedom and liberty depend on it.