The recent House Judiciary Committee on July 27 saw a heated confrontation centered on censorship complaints against Big Tech, with particular emphasis on perceived incursions on rights to free speech. The remarks came from Rep. Mike Johnson (R-AL) as he confronted DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, addressing concerns regarding repeated instances of government-led censorship primarily targeting conservative views on several Big Tech platforms.
The crux of the dispute arose when Johnson questioned Mayorkas’ stance on alleged “misinformation” online. He challenged the DHS Secretary’s viewpoint, arguing that it could lead to chilling effects on constitutionally guaranteed free speech.
“Who determines what’s inaccurate? Who determines what’s false? Do you understand the problem here?” posed Johnson. Such was the gravity felt by Johnson on the issue, that he saw the need of reminding Mayorkas about the fundamental significance of the First Amendment to United States democracy — an implication, perhaps, that these basic rights should be maintained regardless of the changing digital landscape.
In response to Johnson’s fiery line of questioning, Mayorkas adamantly defended his agency’s actions, stating, “What we do is, we disclose the tactics that adverse nation-states are utilizing to weaponize misinformation.” His claim, however, directly contradicted factual evidence outlined in the Missouri v. Biden case by Attorneys General Andrew Bailey of Missouri and Jeff Landry of Louisiana which found that government agencies continually caused the censorship of US citizens.
Johnson critiqued this claim by highlighting the distinction between domestic and foreign speech, saying, “The court found specifically; it’s a finding of fact that is not disputed by the government defendants…They determined that you and all of your cohorts made no distinction between domestic speech and foreign speech, so don’t stand there and tell me under oath that you only focused on adverse, adversaries around the world, foreign actors; that’s not true.”
Rep. Harriet M. Hageman (R-WY) also confronted Mayorkas, on the contentious issue of a program that targeted online speech. Hageman, a member of the House Oversight Committee, grilled Mayorkas on the Biden administration’s Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention scheme.
“Secretary Mayorkas, does the affiliation with conservative or Christian beliefs make someone a Nazi or a domestic terrorist?” she asked. After a deflating response of “Of course, not” from Mayorkas, Hageman stood firm, demanding to know why then were American conservatives and Christians being targeted by Mayorkas’s agency.
Interestingly, Mayorkas did suggest that he was responsible for the formation of the controversial Disinformation Governance Board; an ill-fated attempt at what many called a Ministry of Truth.
Mayorkas’ admission came under the penetrating inquiry of Representative Andy Biggs (R-AZ) who explicitly sought clarification on the origins and the guiding force behind the DGB during the hearing. Initially, Mayorkas made attempts to defend the Disinformation Governance Board, stating it had suffered misrepresentation. However, under the relentless interrogation by Biggs, Mayorkas finally admitted, “Congressman, it is my responsibility.”
While the Disinformation Governance Board is no longer operational, there are growing concerns that the DHS is covertly persevering with its anti-free speech actions.
