WH Response on 'Disinformation Board' Shows Just How Desperate for Control They Are

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

It was not a coincidence that you had Elon Musk buying Twitter and then all of sudden, the Biden team found the need to form a Ministry of Truth run by the DHS — otherwise known as a creepy-sounding “Disinformation Governance Board.”


Now, the first reaction to such an effort by the Biden Administration that most people would have to this is how incredibly Orwellian it is. The second might be that it’s exactly what the First Amendment was designed to protect against. The third might be to take notice this says “governance,” and is being run by the Department of Homeland Security, which usually is pursuing threats and crimes.

So, can fully-declared speech crimes be far away, when you start to have things like this? And finally, this was formed specifically “ahead of the midterms” to deal with “misinformation” peddled to minority communities — which sounds like they’re going to do all they can to try to shut down speech that they think might hurt their chances, just as they did in 2020. And how typical of the Biden Administration to treat minorities as though they can’t make a judgment about the information they receive themselves — this is treating minorities like children to whom the government needs to explain things.

The very people who were upset about President Donald Trump calling media false stories “fake news” are just cool with the government now weighing in and determining what is “true” or not true. These are also the same folks who promoted the Russia collusion hoax for years, as well.


But when asked, White House Press Secretary (soon to be MSDNC propagandist) Jen Psaki acted as though no one could have an issue with their agenda.

“It sounds like the objective of the board is to prevent disinformation and misinformation from traveling around the country in a range of communities,” Psaki said. “I’m not sure who opposes that effort.”

How about any sane person who believes in the Constitution? Every American should oppose this — it violates everything for which we are supposed to stand.

This is the person that she’s praising as an expert on disinformation? Let’s take another look at her.

But the objection isn’t just to the person who would be in charge — a leftist joke who wouldn’t know the truth from disinformation if it smacked her in the face — the very concept is wrong, to begin with. It’s disgraceful that they would now be attempting to use our taxpayer dollars to do such a thing, to control us and control the narrative.


Psaki’s very comment about the board is itself “disinformation,” since a lot of people are opposing it. She of course dismisses that reality. So, are they going to call out their disinformation? The Biden team has some of the biggest purveyors of disinformation on all kinds of subjects, from COVID to the economy — but especially, about anything that might threaten their ability to control the narrative.

What would they think about this kind of a board if Trump were president? You know they would be screaming to the skies and covering how it was an attack on democracy 24/7. Yet, where is the outrage from the liberal media on this? Crickets.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley observed this is a transition from corporate social media censorship to state censorship. They were able to have control and some censorship in social media because of the influence they had on those controlling social media. But now, because they might not control this one platform, they are flipping out and trying to figure out how they can maintain that control.

We saw all the Democratic big wigs coming together on the narrative, with Barack Obama preaching against “disinformation” and pushing for regulation, Elizabeth Warren calling Musk wanting to preserve free speech on Twitter a threat to democracy and calling for “rules” to stop changes, and Hillary Clinton pushing in favor of a European censorship law, the Digital Services Act (DSA).


Turley points out the problem that Musk may ultimately face, despite his desires to protect free speech — if he has to face things like the Digital Services Act in places like Europe, he may have to comply with those laws which don’t care about the First Amendment or free speech, to avoid continuing liability or other legal issues. Thus the company could be forced to base policies on the “lowest common denominator for free speech,” and that would be problematic.

So, we shall have to see how Musk deals with that challenge.

All this scrambling and meltdown from the liberal elite is good news. Because it means they realize they know their control is in big trouble, and freedom is winning.



Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos