The Deep State's Other Proxy War--On Free Speech And The Free Flow Of Information

I’ve been looking for something sensible to say about the arrest of Telegram CEO Pavel Durov by Macron in France. I’ve read the arguments that this is all political, directed by the fact that Telegram is one of, perhaps the, most important platforms for getting out reliable information regarding the Anglo-Zionist wars against Russia and Palestine. In other words, Durov is being pressured to submit to censorship demands, under the pretext of cooperating with criminal investigations. I find those arguments persuasive, but I’m hampered by the complexity of some of the issues involved, including matters involving international legal cooperation. This morning commenter Brother Ass provided a link to Robert Barnes discussing the matter—I highly recommend it.

However, I’d like to turn to another legal commentator, Jonathan Turley. Turley did and interview on Fox News, but still hasn’t written about the Telegram matter. Fortunately, Daily Caller has an article that provides a substantial transcript of what Turley has to say, which I’ll quote at length:

Jonathan Turley Slams ‘Global Censors,’ Says Americans Should Be Afraid After Telegram Founder’s Arrest

“So, the authorities say the app was being used for organized crime, drug trafficking, fraud, cyber bullying and promotion of terrorism. Despite all of that, you’re still against his arrest. Why?” Earhardt asked.

“I am. People need to realize what’s really going on here. We haven’t seen anything akin to a charging sheet, but it appears that he’s being arrested under these European laws that are designed to force social media companies to engage in censorship,” Turley said.

[Turley called the European] … Digital Services Act (DSA) … “one of the greatest threats to free speech that we have today around the world.”

Turley goes on to argue that, as with the previous confrontation with Elon Musk, the US—which lacks the kind of anti-free speech laws that Europe has in the DSA—is using Europe as a proxy to attack free speech and the free flow of information in America.

And this is a global effort to control speech, … he’s being charged with misconduct of others using his site,” Turley said of Durov’s arrest. “It’s like arresting AT&T’s CEO because the mob used a telephone to do its business.”

The actual charges have to do with failing to cooperate with law enforcement. However, as many have argued, what these charges really represent is pressure to shut down accounts before any charges are actually proven.

“And the question for American citizens is whether we’re going to allow these global censors to basically control speech from Europe. Free speech is in a free fall in Europe,” he continued. “It was no accident when Elon Musk bought Twitter, figures like Hillary Clinton almost immediately went to Europe and called on them to use the DSA. Consider that. To use the DSA to censor American citizens. That’s a former presidential candidate calling for censorship through these officials.”

…

For too long, tech platforms have amplified disinformation and extremism with no accountability. The EU is poised to do something about it.

I urge our transatlantic allies to push the Digital Services Act across the finish line and bolster global democracy before it’s too late.

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) April 21, 2022

“Well, you know, the important thing here is that we can arrest people for engaging in conduct. If you’re using the telephone or you’re using social media to engage in human trafficking or child pornography, of course you can be arrested. But what the complaint is against these social media companies is that they’re not doing enough content moderation, and of course they emphasize things like child pornography. But you’ll notice they’re also talking about ‘extreme viewpoints,'” Turley continued, noting that the UK was cracking down on “what they consider to be ‘extreme ideology.'”

“Well, who defines that?” he asked rhetorically.

“So there’s a very dangerous slippery slope that comes from these laws, and American citizens should not be distracted from the implications of things like the DSA,” Turley said. “This is an important fight, and Americans’ rights are at stake here. Don’t be distracted. This Russian billionaire might not be sympathetic to you, but they’re using something that should scare you.”

We’re all against human trafficking and child pornography, but “extreme viewpoints”? It’s not being soft on crime to pause at the notion of letting the government define “extreme viewpoints.” And it’s not coincidence that that type of viewpoint “moderation” is lumped in with actual criminal acts. We seem to be seeing a well organized campaign to restrict the free flow of information.

Readers in the UK and Ireland may wish to read Turley’s views on the attack on free speech in their own countries:

“It’s Not OK Any More”: The United Kingdom Cracks Down on Free Speech

Here’s a telling excerpt that discusses the conviction of an elderly disabled man with supposedly neo-Nazi views:

The neo-Nazi was given a four-year sentence for what the court called his “toxic ideology” based on the contents of the home he shared with his mother in Maidenhead, Berkshire.

While most of us find Brock’s views repellent and hateful, they were confined to his head and his room. Yet, Judge Peter Lodder QC dismissed free speech or free thought concerns with a truly Orwellian statement: “I do not sentence you for your political views, but the extremity of those views informs the assessment of dangerousness.”

Lodder lambasted Brock for holding Nazi and other hateful values:

“[i]t is clear that you are a right-wing extremist, your enthusiasm for this repulsive and toxic ideology is demonstrated by the graphic and racist iconography which you have studied and appeared to share with others…”

Even though Lodder agreed that the defendant was older, had limited mobility, and “there was no evidence of disseminating to others,” he still sent him to prison for holding extremist views.

After the sentencing Detective Chief Superintendent Kath Barnes, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing South East (CTPSE), warned others that he was going to prison because  he “showed a clear right-wing ideology with the evidence seized from his possessions during the investigation….We are committed to tackling all forms of toxic ideology which has the potential to threaten public safety and security.”

“Toxic ideology” also appears to be the target of Ireland’s proposed Criminal Justice (Incitement to Violence or Hatred and Hate Offences) law. It covers the possession of material deemed hateful. The law is a free speech nightmare.  The law makes it a crime to possess “harmful material” as well as “condoning, denying or grossly trivialising genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace.” The law expressly states the intent to combat “forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law.”

The Brock case proved, as feared, a harbinger of what was to come. The home secretary, Yvette Cooper, has vowed to crack down on people “pushing harmful and hateful beliefs.” That includes what she calls extreme misogyny.