Global elites fear America’s First Amendment — and here’s why

At a recent World Economic Forum summit, John Kerry, former Democratic presidential candidate and Biden-Harris administration official, criticized the role of the First Amendment in limiting the government’s ability to censor social media. “You know there’s a lot of discussion now about how you curb those entities in order to guarantee that you're going to have some accountability on facts, etc.,” Kerry complained. “But, look, if people go to only one source, and the source they go to is sick, and, you know, has an agenda and they’re putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to just, you know, hammer it out of existence.”

Kerry’s unguarded remarks might seem surprising, but they reflect a sentiment common among the managerial class that dominates much of the Western world. The unrestricted flow of information has become an existential threat for governments worldwide, which now rush to establish sovereignty in digital spaces to maintain control.

Constitutional rights are only as strong as the will of a nation’s people to uphold them.

The era of mass democracy coincided with the rise of mass media, and this alignment was no accident. As nations rapidly industrialized, vast countries with diverse regional cultures, like the United States, suddenly found ways to connect and unify. Innovations such as trains and telegraphs, followed by telephones, radio, interstate highways, and television, allowed information and people to travel vast distances quickly.

For the first time, governments could centralize economic coordination and effectively disseminate propaganda. Every state sought to capitalize on this. While the approach differed between the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt understood the importance of centralization just as much as Hitler or Stalin did. The 20th century became a century of scale, where nations that lagged in the race for mass communication and control lost their sovereignty to those that succeeded.

In a system where popular sovereignty grants political legitimacy, a ruling class that aims to maintain power must control public opinion. Establishing compulsory public education with a unified curriculum is a good start, but gaining control over the limited number of television and radio stations effectively seals the deal. A consistent narrative across news and entertainment can steer public opinion in a desired direction. While this method doesn’t reach the level of top-down totalitarianism seen in the Soviet Union, it proves to be a more resilient form of control.

The growth in the number of media outlets did little to change this dynamic. The high cost of operation kept the ability to shape public opinion in the hands of a select group of wealthy oligarchs. The political orientation and selection criteria of journalism schools ensured that those who gathered, wrote, and distributed news held similar views. The public could choose from a variety of news sources and formats, but these options often led back to the same approved narrative.

In a media landscape that seemed to offer endless choices, people essentially received only one perspective. The ruling class maintained control by retaining authority over the flow of information.

The internet disrupted the traditional soft-power model. The digital world's decentralized nature made it difficult for any single oligarchic class to control information distribution. Initially, this posed no major issue because the internet was unfamiliar and complex, making it hard for the average person to access. While tech-savvy enthusiasts might have engaged with unapproved ideas on obscure message boards, most voters struggled just to access email through America Online.

But as digital natives matured and became adept with technology, social media emerged as a platform where anyone could go viral. This shift unleashed uncontrolled narratives into the political landscape, disrupting established powers.

The United States government quickly recognized the internet's disruptive potential. Thanks to its technological advancements and sophisticated intelligence operations, the United States was among the first to use the internet and social media to incite revolutions against rival regimes. Media shapes the behavior of the masses, and any government that relies on public opinion must control the information people consume.

Today, every modern government understands this reality. In the United States, however, the enduring protections around free speech make it especially challenging for the ruling elite to maintain that control.

Governments worldwide are racing against the forces of decentralization, aiming to establish digital sovereignty. Like the Roman roads, which sped up travel within the ancient empire but also facilitated barbarian invasions, the digital age presents both opportunities and threats. Modern governments face this challenge, but those not dependent on public approval have an edge. For example, China can more easily assert control over its digital landscape, often channeling all economic activity and communication through a single, state-mandated platform.

Western democracies, however, must tread more carefully when imposing controls. Yet, as we’ve seen in the United Kingdom, democratic governments can still wield significant power. After riots erupted following a mass stabbing incident involving British children, Labor Prime Minister Keir Starmer swiftly enacted draconian censorship measures, even imprisoning citizens for retweeting anti-immigration posts. In the United States, leaders have tried to sidestep First Amendment protections by forming “public-private partnerships,” pressuring social media companies to carry out censorship on their behalf. Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter disrupted this system, creating at least one platform where information flows with relative freedom.

It’s crucial to recognize that the regime’s influence extends beyond formal government entities. The American ruling class has leveraged state power, media, and the nonprofit sector to build an industry around combating “misinformation and disinformation.” This censorship apparatus pushes the boundaries of what a democratic government can achieve through soft power, yet it has not fully succeeded in silencing dissent.

Constitutional rights are only as strong as the will of a nation’s people to uphold them. Although Americans remain deeply divided on most issues, the right to free speech stands as one of the country’s few shared values. This right faces increasing threats, with the state conditioning many citizens to view the First Amendment as “flexible.” Yet, the belief in free speech remains a powerful barrier to government overreach. Figures like John Kerry see the First Amendment as a significant obstacle to their globalist ambitions for control, making it a right that is undeniably worth defending.