December 20, 2024
President elect @realDonaldTrump and his cabinet need to do a better job educating the public on the dangers of the Global Engagement Center (GEC) and why it should be excluded from any Continuing Resolution at all cost. For this reason, I have written a short article highlighting the dangers from the perspective of a 28 year self taught section 1983 and constitutional scholar. It is urgent that everyone read this: The Following Should Not Be Considered Legal Advice. All Readers should Consult Their Own Attorneys. "WHY THE GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT CENTER (GEC) IS DANGEROUS AND COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL WHEN USED AGAINST UNITED STATES CITIZENS." It’s been about 28 years since I first started studying 42 U.S.C. 1983 and related case law. I ate section 1983 case law for breakfast lunch and dinner, case after case, after case, I loved reading about it. I did so for many reasons but primarily due to a lesson I was taught by a biblical scholar actually. When I first became a born again Christian, I studied under a then 30 year biblical scholar named Herbert N Foote, out of Manchester, New Hampshire. He said to me once, “The United States Treasury Department, they don’t spend their time studying all of the counterfeits out there so much as they do studying the real thing, so when a counterfeit comes up against it…they can spot it right away. So it is with studying the Word of God, The Bible. You need to study the real thing so well, you can spot a lie immediately when it comes up against the Truth.” That is paraphrasing, but that had a tremendous impact on me and caused me to apply that principle not just in my tenacious study of the bible but in my study of section 1983 litigation and case law. So when a counter terrorism agency that was originally created for deployment against overseas terrorist groups like al qaeda and Isis is stealthily trojan horsed into deployment against American citizens, a 28 year section 1983 scholar like myself can spot it fairly quickly. This is the reality of the Global Engagement Center (GEC). It is URGENT that the United States Public be educated on how this State Department counterterrorism agency has been manipulated and abused, and turned against American citizens in the most disturbing and Orwellian manner. This is an alarm that goes out to democrats as well as republicans. This is a bi-partisan call for vigilance and a sounding of the alarm to every American who values their free speech and constitutional rights. Ironically it is publications by the ACLU that can quickly educate you about the Global Engagement Center (GEC) and what it’s original purpose was. Those writings are "Global Engagement Center Presentation March 2016" ACLU and the "Global Engagement Center Messaging Thematic Guidance" ACLU , May 2016, obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. These publications are part of the ACLU's broader efforts to promote transparency regarding government activities. The Global Engagement Center (GEC) is a U.S. Department of State agency established to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation. Here's an overview: 1. Establishment of the GEC: The GEC was established on March 14, 2016, by Executive Order 13721, which transformed the existing Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications (CSCC) into the GEC, retaining its counterterrorism mission. Wikipedia 2. Powers and Legal Authorities: The GEC's authority and functions have been defined and expanded through several legislative acts: Executive Order 13721 (2016): This order established the GEC to coordinate U.S. counterterrorism messaging to foreign audiences. U.S. Department of State National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017: This act expanded the GEC's mission to include countering foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining U.S. interests. U.S. Department of State John S. McCain NDAA for Fiscal Year 2019: This act further refined the GEC's mission and endowed it with a mandate to lead, synchronize, and coordinate efforts of the Federal Government to recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts. U.S. Department of State 3. Allegations of Suppressing Free Speech: The GEC has faced allegations of overstepping its mandate by influencing domestic speech, particularly concerning conservative viewpoints: Funding Controversial Entities: The GEC has been reported to fund organizations like the Global Disinformation Index (GDI) and NewsGuard. These entities have been accused of allegedly creating blacklists of conservative media outlets, leading to their demonetization and suppression. New York Post Legal Challenges: In February 2024, The Daily Wire, The Federalist, and the State of Texas filed a lawsuit against the State Department, alleging that the GEC's funding and promotion of censorship technologies violated the First Amendment by suppressing conservative media outlets. Daily Wire Congressional Scrutiny: Members of Congress have expressed concerns over the GEC's role in domestic censorship. For instance, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul and other members have demanded answers regarding the GEC's involvement in suppressing disfavored opinions, particularly those of established conservative media and individuals. Foreign Affairs Committee These concerns have led to debates over the GEC's reauthorization and its future role, with some lawmakers advocating for its termination due to perceived overreach into domestic affairs. To Recap, The Global Engagement Center (GEC) was established by President Barack Obama through Executive Order 13721 on March 14, 2016, to coordinate U.S. counterterrorism messaging to foreign audiences. UCSB Presidency During President Donald Trump's administration, the GEC's mission was expanded to counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining U.S. national security interests. U.S. Department of State In recent years, the GEC has faced criticism for allegedly overstepping its mandate by influencing domestic speech, particularly concerning conservative viewpoints. Critics argue that the GEC's funding of organizations like the Global Disinformation Index and NewsGuard has led to the suppression of conservative media outlets. New York Post As of December 2024, President-elect Trump has expressed opposition to the GEC's current operations, aligning with concerns that the agency has been involved in domestic censorship. His "Free Speech Policy Initiative" includes plans to bar federal agencies from collaborating with censors and to defund entities that target disfavored speech. New York Post But let’s get into specifics of what exactly the GEC has allegedly done and then we will talk about why it is so dangerous and clearly unequivocally unconstitutional. The Global Engagement Center (GEC) has allegedly employed various strategies to fulfill its mission of countering foreign propaganda and disinformation. Here's an overview of its alleged activities, including specific examples: 1. Funding and Collaborations: Global Disinformation Index (GDI): In 2021, the GEC allegedly granted $100,000 to GDI through an investment group called Park Advisors, as part of the U.S.-Paris Tech Challenge. This initiative aimed to develop technologies to combat disinformation and propaganda overseas. Washington Examiner NewsGuard: NewsGuard received a $25,000 joint contract from the Pentagon and the State Department in August 2020 to pilot a program countering COVID-19-related disinformation. AOL 2. Influence on Media Monetization: Advertising Blacklists: GDI has been reported to allegedly create blacklists of media outlets it deems high-risk for disinformation. These blacklists are used by advertising companies to steer ad revenue away from flagged sites. Notably, several conservative outlets have been included on these lists, leading to financial impacts due to reduced advertising income. New York Post 3. Allegations of Domestic Censorship: Election Integrity Partnership (EIP): The GEC allegedly collaborated with the EIP during the 2020 election cycle. The EIP allegedly monitored social media for misinformation and flagged content for platforms to review. Critics argue that this collaboration led to the suppression of certain viewpoints, raising concerns about potential infringements on free speech. The Daily Caller Clarification on Direct Actions: There is no publicly available evidence indicating that the GEC directly instructed platforms like YouTube to demonetize specific channels, including those with conservative content. Instead, the GEC's approach has involved funding and collaborating with third-party organizations that assess disinformation risks. These organizations, in turn, provide ratings or advisories that influence advertisers' decisions on where to place ads, indirectly affecting the monetization of certain media outlets. It's important to note that while the GEC's initiatives are designed to counter foreign disinformation, some of its collaborations have sparked debates about the balance between combating false information and preserving free speech, especially when actions indirectly impact domestic media outlets. Sources: Controversies Surrounding the Global Engagement Center's Influence on Media New York Post State Department tried to discredit reporters, Republican pol over conservative 'blacklist' 94 days ago New York Post Pentagon, other agencies funded potential 'agent of censorship campaigns,' House committee reveals 52 days ago New York Post Bombshell report details how a little-known corporate cartel targets outlets - including The Post - claimed to be spreading 'misinformation' 160 days ago From a constitutional perspective, the government’s involvement in supporting private entities to counter speech it deems misinformation poses significant dangers to the First Amendment. Here is an analysis of these concerns and their implications under constitutional law, including Section 1983: 1. First Amendment Protections and the Danger of Government Suppressing Speech The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits Congress—and by extension the government—from abridging the freedom of speech. The core principle of the First Amendment is that the government cannot regulate speech based on its content, viewpoint, or perceived veracity. Even if certain speech is false or misleading, the government’s role is limited, and it cannot act as the arbiter of truth without infringing on individual liberties. Key Dangers: Chilling Effect: Government involvement in labeling speech as “misinformation” can deter lawful and protected speech. Individuals and organizations may self-censor for fear of being targeted or suppressed, leading to a contraction of public discourse. Viewpoint Discrimination: Any government-backed effort to counter speech inherently involves judgment about which speech is "valid" or "false." This opens the door to preferential treatment of certain viewpoints over others, a hallmark of unconstitutional activity. Relevant Case Law: In West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), the Supreme Court held that the government cannot compel individuals to adopt or suppress specific viewpoints. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Court emphasized the "breathing space" required for free speech, even when some speech may be false. 2. Government Funding of Private Entities: The Symbiotic Relationship and Section 1983 When the government funds or collaborates with private entities to suppress or counteract speech, the relationship can potentially trigger liability under Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code. This statute allows individuals to sue for violations of constitutional rights when a private entity is acting under the color of state law. Symbiotic Relationship: A private entity that receives government funding or acts in partnership with the government can be deemed a state actor if its actions are entwined with government objectives. For instance: If the government provides financial support to an organization like NewsGuard or GDI with the expectation that they will suppress certain types of speech, this creates a “symbiotic relationship.” Such entities could then be viewed as instruments of the state, meaning their actions to suppress speech are attributable to the government. Relevant Doctrine: State Action Doctrine: In Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co. (1982), the Court held that private action is attributable to the state when there is a significant nexus or joint participation between the private actor and the government. Entwinement Test: In Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (2001), the Court emphasized that state action exists when there is "entwinement" between public and private entities. 3. The Government’s Role and Its Inherent Limitations By its very nature, the government should not be involved in regulating speech based on its content or perceived accuracy. The government’s proper role is to ensure the free marketplace of ideas, where speech competes without state interference, rather than favoring or suppressing certain narratives. Why Government Should Avoid Policing Speech: Conflict with Democratic Principles: A government empowered to suppress misinformation today can easily misuse that power tomorrow to silence dissent. Trust in Public Discourse: In a free society, the remedy for falsehoods is more speech, not censorship. This principle is eloquently stated in Whitney v. California (1927) by Justice Brandeis: “The remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” Presumption of Fallibility: No government entity or official is infallible. By attempting to determine “truth,” the government risks imposing flawed or biased standards that erode the foundational protections of the First Amendment. 4. Constitutional Implications of Targeting Misinformation If the government uses private entities to suppress speech, it indirectly does what it cannot do directly. This evasion of constitutional limits is problematic for several reasons: Delegation of Unconstitutional Acts: A government cannot delegate its power to suppress speech to private actors and claim immunity. Violation of Individual Rights: Such actions could result in lawsuits under Section 1983, as they infringe on individuals’ constitutional rights through state-backed censorship. Conclusion: The GEC and it’s practices may be permissible overseas when used on foreign terrorist groups. However when it comes to US citizens and groups here in America, the government’s involvement in countering speech it deems misinformation—whether directly or through funded private entities—runs afoul of the First Amendment. It CLEARLY and unequivocally violates the principle that the government cannot suppress speech based on content or viewpoint, creates chilling effects, and risks transforming private entities into state actors liable under Section 1983. In a constitutional democracy, the government’s role is to protect the free flow of ideas, not to control it, leaving the public to evaluate and counter misinformation through open discourse. For these reasons, NO MEMBER OF CONGRESS WHETHER DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN should support extending this agency’s authority against United States citizens, directly or indirectly, in a continuing resolution. All My Best, WLBJ, Author of “The Republicrat - A Plea To Humanity”.