Biden's disinformation board will NOT spy on American citizens and claim it is the 'opposite' of George Orwell's 'Ministry of Truth'

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Sunday pledged the White House's new Disinformation Governance Board will not be used to monitor American citizens, despite mounting Republican concerns that it will be a tool for censorship and surveillance.

'There are people in the department who have a diverse range of views, and they’re incredibly dedicated to the mission,' he said when pledging the board will not step on free speech.

Mayorkas also defended the board's new head Nina Jankowicz, a Russian disinformation expert who previously advised the Ukrainian government, from a slew of Republican accusations of hyperpartisanship.

He lauded her as 'eminently qualified' and a 'renowned expert in the field of disinformation.'

Republicans like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis have compared it to the 'Ministry of Truth' in George Orwell's dystopian novel 1984, claiming it's being done to silence right-wing voices.

'It's clear I mean, those criticisms are precisely the opposite of what this small working group within the Department of Homeland Security will do,'

However, he acknowledged that the Biden administration 'probably could have done a better job of communicating what it does and does not do.'

'The fact is that disinformation that creates a threat to the security of the homeland is our responsibility to address, and this department has been addressing it for years.'

(DHS) announced last week that it was creating the board in a bid to crack down on disinformation coming from Russia as well as disinformation spread by human smugglers to encourage migrants to attempt to cross the southern border.

'The board -- this working group, internal working group -- will draw from best practices and communicate those best practices to the operators, because the board does not have operational authority.'

The Biden official gave a firm 'no' when asked whether Americans will be monitored.

They think that freedom of the press refers only to them. It does not. It is a right for all of us.

I've been saying this for a long time.

Here is an older post of mine that expresses my thoughts on that.
The notion that "freedom of the press" refers to the trade of journalism is incorrect. Usage of the phrase "the press" to refer to newspapermen didn't originate until the early 1900s.
The origins of the first amendment reference to "freedom of the press" literally refers to the machine, the printing press.
All the rights of individuals in the first amendment should be taken together as different sides of the same concept:
"abridging the freedom of speech" quite literally meant speech as far as crowds of people could hear you. It's the proverbial person standing on a soapbox in the town square shouting his opinions to others.
"the right of the people to peaceably assemble" means literally to stand together to hear a speaker speak. During colonial British rule, a group of people seen together in public would be suspected as being conspirators against the Crown. Free speech does no good if the People aren't allowed to congregate to hear you.
"freedom of the press" meant the right of anyone to publish. Spoken word only traveled as far as one could hear it. Printing one's thoughts and distributing them across the colonies extended the reach of thought, and therefore, its influence.
"the freedom to worship" combines the above three, publishing the tenets of a religion, gathering in common prayer, and speaking about one's beliefs to others.
"the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances" meant using the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly to call out when the federal government exceeded its Constitutional authority.
"Journalism," or "the press" as they like to refer to themselves, is an amalgam of these rights. It's an industry that uses free speech and free press to report on the activities of government through the way government interacts with and impacts the people, as well as reporting on the assemblies of people with each other.
But ultimately, freedom of the press is the peoples' right to publish, not CNN's right to special protections. If this journalist is saying that CNN has a right to publish innuendo and smear, then we ALL do.
Follow-up thoughts with links:
The origin of the term "the press" to refer to periodicals and journalism generally (see also the so-called Fourth Estate) didn't begin until the 1800s. The usage in reference specifically to reporters and journalists collectively didn't begin until the early 1900s.
At the time of the Framers of the Constitution, "the press" meant the printing press, and "freedom of the press" meant the right of citizens to publish, sharing their thoughts, opinions, and beliefs beyond the range of simple speech in a town square. Many examples of this were "citizen journalists," journaling the goings on in their communities, and sharing opinions on them with the other colonies.
"Freedom of the press" was meant to ban the federal government from stopping Americans from mass communicating, not to enshrine a special class of "journalists" as watchdogs over the government. All citizens were watchdogs, just as we do here on Free Republic.

Benjamin Franklin's thoughts on freedom of the press, from the same linked thread:

What's interesting in Franklin's original piece is that the "court" he is referring to is the so-called court of public opinion.
The "press" is not a class of journalists as it is known today; it was the citizen journalist who had something to say. Quoting Franklin:
In whose favor and for whose emolument this court is established? In favor of about one citizen in 500, who by education, or practice in scribbling, has acquired a tolerable stile as to grammar and construction so as to bear printing; or who is possessed of a press and a few types? This 500th part of the citizens have the privilege of accusing and abusing the other 499 parts, at their pleasure; or they may hire out their pens and press to others for that purpose...
It is not by any Commission from the Supreme Executive Council, who might previously judge of the abilities, integrity, knowledge, &c. of the persons to be appointed to this great trust, of deciding upon the characters and good fame of the citizens; for this court is above that council, and may accuse, judge, and condemn it, at pleasure. Nor is it hereditary, as in the court of dernier resort, in the peerage of England. But any man who can procure pen, ink, and paper, with a press, and a huge pair of BLACKING balls, may commissionate himself: And his court is immediately established in the plenary possession and exercise of its rights.

Just as Franklin suggested, today's "one citizen in 500" class of elitist "journalists" regularly engage in what Franklin called "the privilege of accusing and abusing the other 499 parts, at their pleasure." That's what Twitter was for, and that's why conservatives were deplatformed, shadow banned, and censored from responding in kind.

What was really prescient was Franklin's warning:

It is not by any Commission from the Supreme Executive Council, who might previously judge of the abilities, integrity, knowledge, &c. of the persons to be appointed to this great trust, of deciding upon the characters and good fame of the citizens;

This is EXACTLY what Biden's new Disinformation Governance Board is setting itself up to do.

We should heed Franklin's words.

-PJ

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.