When Laws Come Back to Bite You: The Rogan-Benz Interview Recap and Action Plan

In his recent appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience, Mike Benz, a former U.S. Department of State official and the current Executive Director of the Foundation for Freedom Online, delved into what he refers to as the “Censorship Industrial Complex.” This complex, according to Benz, involves a network of government agencies, NGOs, universities, and tech companies working together to control and censor information, particularly online.

His allegations include a wide variety of First and Fourth Amendment crimes against you and I - paid for by you and I - the American taxpayer.

1. Government and Tech Collaboration: Benz described how the U.S. government has increasingly leaned on tech companies like Google and Twitter to censor content deemed as misinformation or disinformation. He traced the origins of this collaboration back to when tech companies were part of national security strategies, especially post-2016 election combined with the Russian Collusion hoax. to “combat foreign interference”, which has since morphed into broader domestic censorship efforts.

2. Military-Industrial Complex Influence: The military-industrial complex has mechanisms used for foreign influence operations; these have turned inward to control domestic narratives. This has included funding and influence from defense-related entities to shape information environments, both abroad and at home.

3. NGOs as Government Proxies: Numerous NGOs act as government proxies in executing censorship policies. These organizations, often funded by the government or large foundations, help shape the narrative by influencing social media platforms to censor content under the guise of combating disinformation. Examples include the Atlantic Council and the Aspen Institute, which have been implicated in influencing digital content moderation.

4. Universities and Academic Institutions: Dozens of U.S. universities have established taxpayer-funded centers focused on disinformation studies, which he claims are essentially censorship hubs. These include major universities where departments like sociology, communications, or even applied physics are involved in developing AI and other tools for censorship. This academic involvement is seen as part of a broader civil society effort to legitimize and carry out censorship initiatives.

5. Media’s Role: The media plays a significant role in this complex by often promoting narratives that align with government interests or by directly participating in the censorship by flagging content or influencing public opinion against certain discourses. Media outlets work in tandem with government agencies to push for the censorship of certain viewpoints.

6. The Role of the Intelligence Community: Benz detailed how intelligence agencies have covertly influenced online narratives. He cited instances where the NSA and other intelligence bodies have allegedly collaborated with media to target political opponents or narratives not favorable to the establishment’s views, using leaks and other clandestine methods.

7. Election Integrity and Censorship: He argued that the censorship apparatus was significantly ramped up around elections, with the intention of controlling political discourse. Events like Russiagate were used as justifications to expand these operations, which Benz claims are aimed at suppressing populist movements that threaten the status quo of the foreign policy establishment.

8. EU’s Influence on Censorship: Benz also touched on how European Union policies, particularly the Digital Services Act, have implications for global internet freedom. He suggested these laws are designed to curb the rise of populist parties by controlling what can be said online, which indirectly pressures U.S. platforms due to their international operations.

9. The Whole of Society Approach: Benz explained the concept of a “whole of society” approach to disinformation, where the government funds and coordinates with various societal sectors to enforce censorship. This includes not just tech companies but also think tanks, university programs, and media outlets, creating a seemingly democratic push for censorship that’s actually orchestrated from the top.

10. Legal and Policy Frameworks: He critiqued how laws and policies have been shaped to justify this censorship under the guise of protecting democracy or national security. Benz suggested that this framing inverts democratic principles by allowing government control over speech to preserve the power of certain institutions, like legacy media, which he claims are seen as assets to be protected through censorship.

Benz painted a picture of a sophisticated, multi-layered system designed to control information flow, especially in the digital realm, by leveraging government power, academic research, NGO influence, and corporate compliance. 

This system is a gross abuse of free speech and the democratic process.

Deciding what information can reach the public under the pretext of combating misinformation serves only to maintain political and ideological control. 

As for legal remedies, I used AI (Elon Musk’s Grok from x.AI) to generate a few ideas for enterprising attorneys:

1. First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

This amendment protects freedom of speech, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Any government action that aims to censor or control speech must pass strict scrutiny to ensure it does not infringe on these rights.

2. The Hatch Act (1939):

While primarily aimed at preventing federal employees from engaging in political activities, amendments like those potentially proposed in H.R. 140 aim to expand its reach to prohibit federal employees from influencing or coercing private entities to censor speech.

3. Privacy Act of 1974:

This act establishes controls over the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of personal information by federal agencies. It requires agencies to be transparent about their information practices and restricts the sharing of data that could be used for targeting individuals for censorship.

4. Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA, 1986):

Provides privacy protections for electronic communications by prohibiting certain types of interception and disclosure of electronic communications. Unauthorized access to or alteration of electronic communications could be pertinent in cases involving digital censorship or surveillance.

5. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA, 1986):

This law makes it illegal to access a computer without authorization or to exceed authorized access, which could apply in scenarios where government or contractors manipulate social media platforms or other systems to control information flow.

6. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 1966):

While not directly about censorship, FOIA promotes government transparency, which could be undermined by secretive censorship efforts. If government agencies are involved in covert censorship, FOIA could potentially be used to request information on these activities.

7. Communications Decency Act, Section 230 (1996):

While this section provides immunity to online platforms from civil liability for content created by users, there has been discussion around how government influence might circumvent this protection. Any law that seeks to make platforms liable for not censoring content might conflict with this section.

8. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA, 1978):

Although focused on foreign intelligence surveillance, there have been concerns about its use or misuse in domestic contexts, which could intersect with domestic censorship activities if information is used to target or control speech.

9. Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause:

Ensures that individuals have a right to due process, which could be argued to be violated if government or its contractors target individuals for speech without clear legal justification or due process.

10. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII:

This could come into play if censorship activities disproportionately affect certain groups or if there’s discrimination in information dissemination based on protected characteristics like race, religion, or political affiliation (in jurisdictions where political affiliation is protected).

11. Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA, 2002):

Requires federal agencies to implement a program to provide security for the information and information systems that support the operations and assets of the agency, which could be relevant if information systems are used to censor or monitor citizens.

12. The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015:

This act included amendments to the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA) to strengthen privacy protections in the sharing of cyber threat indicators.

* * *

To reiterate: This taxpayer-funded system is a gross abuse of free speech and the democratic process.

Please forward to enterprising attorneys or their spouses. Written with the assistance of AI (Grok).

Source: https://directorblue.blogspot.com/2024/12/when-laws-come-back-to-bite-you-rogan.html