Foreign governments are building a global censorship-industrial complex to crush freedom of speech online.
Now, they're trying to force social media companies to censor American speech on U.S. soil.
I wrote to @elonmusk to sound the alarm. 🧵
In Europe and elsewhere, foreign governments have imposed draconian censorship on their own people.
But they're also trying to impose it here—wielding their power to force U.S. companies to manipulate algorithms and take down content posted on U.S. soil.
But that's exactly what the EU, UK, Australia, and others are doing.
Under the banner of "online safety" or fighting "hate speech" and "disinformation," these countries have enacted laws like the Digital Services Act and built a global censorship regime backed by powerful NGOs:
For example, when the EU threatened X for hosting a conversation between @realDonaldTrump and @elonmusk, they cited the DSA.
They warned X that "harmful content" and "disinformation" might have "negative effects" in the EU, giving rise to liability:
These laws empower European bureaucrats to target specific posts to censor.
So if you make a satirical joke from the U.S. criticizing Europe's mass migration policies after an "asylum seeker" goes on a stabbing rampage, French authorities might demand X censor your post:
Or if you suggest that immigrants who commit crimes should be deported, German bureaucrats will demand social media companies censor your speech:
Or if you suggest that everyone driving electric vehicles might not be the best environmental or economic idea since sliced bread, Europe's Ministers of Truth will demand social media companies censor you simply because some bureaucrat disagrees with your position:
But they can't efficiently enforce their diktats one post a time, so these laws require the social media to do it for them through algorithmic censorship.
That way, the algorithm censors you automatically—in accordance with their hard-left speech codes—before you ever go viral:
A study recently found that this algorithmic censorship (shadow-banning, throttling posts, deboosting content) didn't just impact so-called "illegal content," but often targeted and censored a much broader swathe of speech—basically, anything that leftist bureaucrats didn't like.
So in France, speech favoring right-wing politicians was commonly censored.
And in Germany, targets of censorship included speech that cast doubt on the far-left's climate agenda.
The study suggested this algorithmic censorship was connected to these countries' laws.
In Germany, the NetzDG law uses several mechanism to incentivize platforms to censor.
As my letter explains, the DSA takes the exact same approach.
That threatens US free speech.
The EU recently fined X for $140 million under the DSA. The EU says it wasn't about speech, but as my letter explains that is a ruse.
Indeed, the fine came as part of the EU's multi-pronged attack on X under the DSA—and we all know this is about X's refusal to censor Americans.
Simply put, we can't allow clowns like these folks to determine what Americans get to see online.
If Europe wants to sacrifice its own liberty on the altar of leftism, that's their choice.
But we won't allow them to export that petty tyranny to the US.
European governments have imposed tyrannical censorship on their own citizens.
Now, they're trying to impose it on America.
Today, I'm asking the Trump Administration to sanction foreign actors—in the European Union and elsewhere—who aid and abet this censorship regime. 🧵
Over the past decade, we've seen alarming attacks on basic liberties across the West. In Europe, many governments have thrown their citizens in jail—sometimes for years at a time—for criticizing mass immigration, gender ideology, and various other parts of the left-wing program.
Now, they're seeking to impose their censorship on Americans.
The internet is global. It isn't split into country-by-country silos. If an EU regulator makes a platform comply with its speech codes, those speech codes end up affecting everyone who uses the platform anywhere.
Rogue Judge Boasberg has been rubber-stamping gag orders in violation of the law. The federal courts response: "these requests are normally granted."
This practice aids and abets prosecutorial abuses.
Here's what happened—and how it connects to Judge Boasberg and Jack Smith.🧵
Recently, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts sent a letter to Congress admitting that judges have been improperly rubberstamping non-disclosure orders—gag orders that prevent phone companies from alerting customers that law enforcement has subpoenaed their records.
That's a huge problem.
The law requires judges to make individualized determinations that the facts of the case necessitate this secrecy.
If judges were rubber-stamping NDOs/gag orders without even knowing the identity of the individuals involved, then that violates the law.
I was just targeted and sued by Communist China in a $50 Billion Lawfare campaign—retaliation against me for winning a $24 Billion judgment against China for hoarding PPE during COVID.
This baseless, meritless lawfare is unprecedented. I'm fighting it with everything I've got.🧵
April 2020: I filed Schmitt v. the People's Republic of China, fighting back against the PRC's hoarding of PPE and lying to the international community.
Today: The Wuhan Virology Lab (yes, that one) and the Chinese Government are suing me for exposing the truth.
Instead of trying to defend its indefensible behavior, Communist China responded with frivolous lawfare, attempting to absolve themselves of all wrongdoing in the early days of the pandemic.
From the Lab Leak to PPE Hoarding, they deny it all.
That's odd, given that California has been the site of some of the most egregious H-1B abuse.
Take the infamous case of Southern California Edison: Hundreds of U.S. tech workers were laid off and then forced to train their H-1B replacements just to get their severance package.
Is the headless fourth branch of government constitutional? I say no.
Today, SCOTUS hears arguments in Trump v. Slaughter. The Court will decide the fate of "Humphrey's Executor," a 90-year-old unconstitutional precedent that created that fourth branch.
My Amicus Brief. 🧵
In March, President Trump fired two unaccountable Democrat Federal Trade Commissioners.
One of those commissioners, Rebecca Slaughter, sued—arguing the President did not have the power to fire her without cause.
In the run-up to today's argument, the Trump Administration has won some early preliminary wins in this case—including a preliminary ruling that has kept former FTC Comm'r Slaughter sidelined for the duration of the litigation.
No more delays. Judge Boasberg must be suspended immediately.
Impeachment is underway. He should not get to hear another case—this afternoon I led the effort to make that suspension happen.
My letter to Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the D.C. Circuit. 🧵
On November 4, articles of impeachment were filed against U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia—following my call for his impeachment.