Jonathan Turley: Twitter Censorship Is the Modern-Day Red Scare

“The Democratic Party [is] the bedfellow of international communism.” These words by Sen. Joe McCarthy summarised the essence of the Red Scare. Use of blacklists and personal attack to silence critics This week, Democrats seem to have adopted the same approach in labeling Russian sympathizers as their opponents.

The Red Scare has returned and is now going blue.

This week, I testified before Congress about the Twitter Files. They suggest what I called. “censorship by surrogate” Or, you can use a proxy.

These files contain dozens of FBI agents and government employees. Actively seeking to censor citizens and other people for their views. My testimony warned that this is reminiscent of McCarthy’s McCarthy period, when the FBI was involved in creating blacklists for communists and socialists. I urged Congress to not repeat the mistakes of the 1950s and to not ignore such abuse.

Tulsi Gabbard (ex-Rep.) was a strong advocate of this view. She became persona nongrata because she expressed antiwar sentiments in Congress. Later she was called a “Russian asset” Hillary Clinton, who refused to back the scurrilous claim by a former member.

The Democrats propagated a Russian collusion theory for many years. Later it was discovered that Clinton’s campaign had lied and hidden about funding the Steele Dossier. People like Carter Page were falsely accused as Russian agents, and critics were called Russian apologists. Ironically, the FBI was warned by Russian agents that the dossier looked like it was the result of Russian disinformation.

My warning about McCarthy-like threats and measures was more of a suggestion than a directive. However, MSNBC contributor Claire McCaskill, a former Senator, appeared on MSNBC shortly after the hearing to condemn the witnesses (Sen. Chuck Grassley; Sen. Ron Johnson; and former Rep. Gabbard). “Putin apologists” Putin and Putin-lovers

She exclaimed: “I mean, look at this, I mean, all three of those politicians are Putin apologists. I mean, Tulsi Gabbard loves Putin.” (It is important to note that she also attacked me for not being “a real lawyer.”)

Most striking was the number of attacks on Those who are interested in an investigation of possible FBI abuses. The Democratic Party used to be the strongest defender of free speech and the greatest critic of corporate power. It was also the greatest skeptic about the FBI. It is now opposing the investigation into the FBI’s involvement in a massive corporate-run censorship system.

It was simple for politicians in the 1950s to simply label their opponents fellow travelers, rather than discuss their underlying views. As a way to avoid worrying disclosures in the Twitter Files, we are witnessing the same personal attacks being used today.

McCaskill, for example, yells at the audience. “Russians!” Others use modern labels like “conspiracy theorists.” This includes the FBI.

The FBI called critics after they were criticized for their role in secretly targeting citizens to censorship. “conspiracy theorists . . . feeding the American public misinformation.” This is what you would expect from a politician or pundit. It is far more menacing when this attack comes from the country’s largest law enforcement agency.

What the Hoover FBI would call dissidents “Communist sympathizers,” They are classified by the Wray FBI “conspiracy theorists.”

Many Democrats, however, interpreted anyone criticizing Twitter’s censorship as supporting rebellions against the government. Member after member suggested that seeking to investigate the government’s role in censorship was to invite or even welcome another Jan. 6.

So, when Thomas Baker (a former FBI agent) testified on his numerous writings about changes within the FBI, Dan Goldman (D–NY), attacked him and asked if he had experience investigating extremist groups. He didn’t get the answer he hoped for. Baker answered. “Yes,” He tried to explain his past experiences, but Goldman cut him off instantly and accused him with trying to sell a novel.

I for my part got off lightly. I was not accused as a Russian mole, or a fellow traveler of insurrectionists. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), asked me a question about the content of the files. This was confirmed and released by Twitter. “legal opinions” Twitter without actually working there. This is like saying that witnesses cannot discuss the implications and details of the Pentagon papers without actually working at Twitter.

It is all very familiar. This week, the focus was on attacking witnesses and not on addressing what appears to have been the largest censorship program in this country’s history. Ironically, it is those trying to curb such government-supportedcensorship that are called Putin lovers. Putin is fond of censorship and may be awestruck by the success of corporations and the FBI to regulate speech on social networks.

Putin and other authoritarian nations have long been afraid of the Internet and social networks. They have not been able to achieve the same level of censorship as Twitter or other executives supported by politicians and pundits.

Now we know that Rep. Adam Schiff (D.Calif.), secretly sought to censor critics, including columnists. Putin would be proud of their achievements.

Democrats insist that freedom is tyranny. Robert Reich, former Clinton Labor secretary, went Orwellian when Robert Reich dismissed calls for free speech on social media. He warned that censorship was a serious threat. “necessary to protect American democracy.”

He then bizarrely added some uncensored media: “That’s Musk’s dream. And Trump’s. And Putin’s. And the dream of every dictator, strongman, demagogue and modern-day robber baron on Earth. For the rest of us, it would be a brave new nightmare.”

It is indeed a nightmare but it is familiar.

Jonathan Turley, an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School, is Jonathan Turley.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases