Free speech is under attack in America today. When the government or social media platforms, often working together, accuse someone of spreading “misinformation,” what they’re really saying is that person is lying. But who decides what’s true and what isn’t? The power to label something as misinformation or disinformation is the power to suppress free speech, and that’s a dangerous weapon.
Social media “fact checkers” routinely suppress opposing views by labeling them misinformation. This censorship is a direct attack on free speech. When the government and the media control the narrative, they manipulate public opinion to maintain their power. Just think about this: The federal government has repeatedly told us the southern border is secure. Yet, over 11 million foreign nationals have crossed illegally in less than 3 ½ years. That’s not misinformation or disinformation—it’s a bold-faced lie.
Our constitutional republic cannot survive if we allow our leaders and their allies in the media to deceive us with lies and propaganda. When the Soviets did it, we called it propaganda. Why are we afraid to call it out when it happens here?
The American people deserve the truth—the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The terms “misinformation” and “disinformation” actually originated from a Russian word, dezinformatsiya, which means deliberately deceiving public opinion. In fact, Joseph Stalin established a Special Office of Disinformation in 1923, and the Great Soviet Encyclopedia defined it as a way to manipulate public perception. Propaganda was a cornerstone of Soviet control, rewriting history to align with the government’s ideology. Statues were replaced, public holidays were altered, and the past was reshaped to serve the present.
Does any of this sound familiar? In America today, our founding fathers are being vilified, statues are being torn down, and holidays like Columbus Day are now considered controversial. Meanwhile, new holidays are created to rewrite the narrative. Even school names are changed to reflect disdain for our past. As George Orwell warned in 1984, “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.”
The Soviets used propaganda to divide people and create class struggles, all to maintain totalitarian control. Are similar tactics being used in America today under the guise of combating “misinformation” and “disinformation”? Truth was once a cornerstone of American values, as seen in the mythical story of young George Washington admitting, “I cannot tell a lie.” But today, lies and deception have become tools to manipulate public opinion.
The American people deserve better. They deserve leaders who revere the truth and hold it sacred—not ones who weaponize misinformation to cling to power. It’s time to demand the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Paul Parisi is the Arizona Grassroots Director for Our America.
Charges against Rebekah Massie, the Surprise mother who was arrested while exercising her First Amendment rights at a city council meeting, were tossed out by North Valley Justice Court Judge Gerald Williams last week. As previously reported by AZ Free News, Massie was to be tried for trespassing after she criticized the Surprise City Attorney during a city council meeting. Judge Williams agreed when defense counsel moved that the trespassing charges against Massie be dismissed with prejudice, meaning they cannot be refiled, and called the charges “objectively outrageous.”
Massie’s attorney Bret Royle, explained, “Rebekah should never have been detained, let alone criminally charged, for speaking her mind. That’s the kind of thing that happens in tyrannical countries, but should never happen here. No American should face jail time for exercising their freedom of speech, and we’re relieved the court agreed.”
Just one day after hearing from attorneys representing Massie and the city, Judge Williams released a scorching three-page ruling, pointedly noting that the city has since rescinded the policy Massie was arrested under, which prohibited the public from criticizing city officials during council meetings.
He wrote in part, “No branch of any federal, state, or local government in this country should ever attempt to control the content of political speech.” He added, “In this case, the government did so in a manner that was objectively outrageous.”
“The Defendant should not have faced criminal prosecution once for expressing her political views,” Williams added. “The Court agrees that she should never face criminal prosecution, for expressing her political views on that date at that time, again.”
JUSTICE: A judge just THREW OUT the criminal charge against an Arizona mom who was arrested and frog-marched out of a city council meeting for criticizing a city attorney’s pay.
The judge slammed the government’s suppression of her free speech as “objectively outrageous.” pic.twitter.com/G9eAgXaRMt
In the unusual case, Surprise city prosecutors recused themselves, citing a conflict of interest, and Massie’s charges were handled by the City of Phoenix Prosecutor’s Office. The Phoenix Prosecutors argued that the case should be dismissed without prejudice allowing the city to potentially re-file charges.
In court documents, Royle argued that the charges against Massie should be dismissed with prejudice based on a lack of evidence to support Massie’s arrest to begin with.
“Ms. Massie was not ‘remaining unlawfully’ as she was within her rights to remain in the chamber despite being asked to leave by Mayor Hall and Officer Shernicoff,” Royle told the court. In his ruling, Williams concurred, observing that Massie’s arrest, originating as it did from city council policy, regulated political speech and “would trigger scrutiny,” under constitutional legal analysis.
A lawsuit against the city by Massie, represented by FIRE is ongoing. In a press release from the FIRE, Massie said, “For more than two months I’ve been living with the threat of punishment and jail time — being taken away from my kids, even — for doing nothing more than criticizing the government. Free speech still matters in America, and I can’t tell you what a relief it is to have people on my side standing up for our rights with me.”
FIRE attorney Conor Fitzpatrick said in a statement, “This is an incredible win for Rebekah and an important message to government bureaucrats around the country that the First Amendment bows to no one. The fight goes on in Rebekah’s lawsuit against the City of Surprise, Mayor Hall, and Officer Schernicoff. We want to make it crystal clear to governments across the United States that brazenly censoring people and betraying the First Amendment comes with a cost.”
As recently reported by AZ Free News, KFYI’s James T. Harris released internal video he obtained of Surprise Police Chief Benny Piña seeming to defend Massie’s arrest, telling officers, “What happened last week in a council meeting resulted in what I think everybody in the world is calling an illegal arrest and a violation of someone’s First Amendment rights. That’s clearly not what we’re about, and that’s not what happened.”
In a statement emailed to AZ Free News after Judge William’s ruling, FIRE attorney Adam Steinbaugh said, “The police chief says their conduct exemplifies the ‘mission’ and ‘philosophy’ of the Surprise Police Department. A judge said their conduct was ‘objectively outrageous.’ We agree with the judge, and the Surprise Police Department should do some soul-searching.”
Surprise Police Chief Benny Piña has found himself once again taking wide criticism stemming from the arrest of a mother who defied the city council while exercising her First Amendment rights. Along with the initial arrest, the Chief is now at the center of a firestorm after an internal department video from a week after the incident was obtained by KFYI’s James T. Harris. The video features Piña giving officers “a few things to avoid when confronted by a 1st Amendment auditor,” and defending the woman’s arrest.
Rebekah Massie, a mother from Surprise, was arrested in front of her 10-year-old daughter after criticizing the Surprise City Attorney Robert Wingo in August in a now-viral video. Massie and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) subsequently sued the city, and the council eventually reversed the policy that led to her arrest.
In the Surprise Police Department video created a week later, Piña is seen telling officers, “What happened last week in a council meeting resulted in what I think everybody in the world is calling an illegal arrest and a violation of someone’s First Amendment rights. That’s clearly not what we’re about, and that’s not what happened.”
Curiously, the Chief advised officers not to be completely open or truthful to what he called “First Amendment Auditors.” “[There are a] few things to avoid when confronted by a First Amendment auditor,” Piña said.
Piña introduced Sgt. Jamie Rothschild and suggested that the criticisms against him and the department are the work of “trolls and bots.” He responded to calls to fire Steve Shernicoff, the arresting officer.
The Chief told officers, “We took action that night to complete what we normally would do which is a use of force report. We took real quick action to make certain that we were in line with what our policy is and what our philosophy is, which is to take next steps to make certain that we were in a position of power to show that we, specifically Officer Shernicoff, acted with absolute speed to carry out the mission as directed that evening.”
He added, “When something doesn’t look right, or something doesn’t look popular, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.”
Footage of the meeting and of Massie being led out as her child cried quickly went viral within days of the arrest. Bodycam footage was later released by Surprise PD.
The footage shows that Piña was present during the arrest and did not intervene. Massie was charged with trespassing, resisting arrest, and obstructing government operations. Following the uproar in response to the incident, State Senator John Kavanaugh publicly called for Attorney General Kris Mayes to investigate the arrest.
“In Arizona statutes, we have a provision that specifically says, ‘[a] public body may make an open call to the public during a public meeting, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions, to allow individuals to address the public body on any issue within the jurisdiction of the public body,’” said Kavanagh.
“Protecting freedom of speech, especially in public government settings, is incredibly important to our democracy. Regardless of where they stand, members of the public deserve the opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns to city leaders.”
AZ Free News has reached out to Massie via her representation from FIRE for comment. As of this report no response has been received.
The McCain Institute played host to several “disinformation experts” in Phoenix last week, where they discussed how best to control free speech online.
These experts, Bret Schafer and Rachael Dean Wilson, hail from Alliance for Securing Democracy at the German Marshall Fund.
Schafer created and manages Hamilton 2.0, an online open-source dashboard tracking the outputs of Russia, Chinese, and Iranian state media outlets, diplomats, and government officials. Wilson was the communications director and advisor to the late John McCain.
Schafer’s Hamilton 2.0 is a continuation of his original project within Alliance For Securing Democracy, Hamilton 68, which culled data from major social media companies to identify content similarities between foreign adversaries and Americans — X when it was “Twitter” prior to Elon Musk’s buyout, Facebook, and Instagram — shortly after Donald Trump assumed the presidency in 2017. Musk paywalled X’s application programming interface, stymieing Schafer’s data stream.
Schafer was part of investigations into practices by social media companies that were weaponizing the government against right-wing citizens.
During last Thursday’s panel, Schafer said that an individual from Meta (Facebook) told him that they began to implement more “guardrails” following the Christchurch shooting, since the shooter used the company’s live-stream function, “Facebook Live,” to film and publish the attack. Schafer said that artificial intelligence (AI) was the “reverse” of efforts to implement guardrails, and expressed concern that there should be greater limitations on “problematic” online speech.
“I think the concern is this pollution in the information space, so if somebody has a narrative that’s particularly problematic it now seems as if it’s coming from 50, 100, 200,000 different sources and it can kind of drown out competing voices who are not using manipulated information to get their message out,” said Schafer.
Schafer advocated for social media companies to reduce the spread of content not originating from certain officials or media outlets. He recalled how those technology companies did some of this during the 2020 election. Schafer lamented that public perception of social media companies controlling content reach and visibility became “politicized” and controversial.
“The only way to make sure the people who genuinely want to actually access accurate information […] is for [social media companies] to make some decisions about what is and is not quality information,” said Schafer. “That has become politicized in ways that I think are really problematic so I think we do need to pressure the companies to the various mechanisms we can: advertisers, everything else to ensure at least around elections that they are taking an active role in making decisions about what should be prioritized because if it’s just left up to the algorithms we’re not going to see the good information surface at the top.”
Wilson agreed. She added that officials could rely on online influencers to spread their information. Combined with Schafer’s proposal of increasing and prioritizing reach for certain information from certain officials and experts, that may mean influencers would be incentivized to spread certain information in order to increase their visibility, engagement, and monetization.
“I think getting the influencers to encourage referencing experts is really important,” said Wilson.
Secretary of State Adrian Fontes also participated in the panel discussions.
Like the Hamilton initiative, the Alliance for Securing Democracy was founded after Trump took the White House. The organization is led by Laura Thornton, whom the McCain Institute hired in August to serve as senior director of global democracy programs.
Among its team members are David Salvo, former Obama administration foreign service officer within the State Department, and Shanthi Kalathil, former deputy assistant to the president and coordinator for democracy and human rights at the National Security Council under President Joe Biden.
Alliance for Securing Democracy used to publicize its list of advisory members until some time late last year or earlier this year.
Mike Cherthoff, formerly the W. Bush administration Homeland Security Secretary;
Toomas Ilves, formerly the Estonia president and a World Economic Forum co-chair;
David Kramer, formerly a McCain Institute senior director and W. Bush administration State Department official;
Bill Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard and former staffer for the Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations;
Rick Ledgett, formerly the Obama administration NSA deputy director;
Mike McFaul, formerly the Obama administration ambassador to Russia;
Michael Morelll, formerly the Obama administration CIA acting director;
Ana Palacio, lawyer and formerly European Parliament member;
John Podesta, formerly Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair and an official for both the Clinton and Obama administrations.
Mike Rogers, CNN commentator and formerly a GOP congressman, army officer, FBI special agent;
Marietje Schaake, formerly a European Parliament member;
Kori Schake, American Enterprise Institute director and formerly employed by the State Department, Defense Department, and White House National Security Council; and,
Nicole Wong, formerly the Obama administration deputy chief technology officer, Google vice president and deputy general counsel, and Twitter legal director for products.
This week, the McCain Institute announced it had been accepted to be featured in the competitive annual event, South by Southwest.
Last week’s full panel is available here:
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Free speech is dying in schools. Ian Prior with America First posted on X that the Loudoun County School Board Chair recently shut down public comment to “combat misinformation.” The Chair claimed that misinformation is rising, and the board must be vigilant in actively combating it. Since COVID, parents have taken to the microphone at Loudon County Public Schools (LCPS) board meetings nationwide to make public comments. Some respectfully, and some in outrage, have sought to hold the governing board accountable for unthinkable, immoral school incidents and an apparent reckless disregard for core academics.
Take, for example, another LCPS board meeting. A female student’s father became agitated about her daughter’s alleged recent assault in the girls’ bathroom by a boy wearing a skirt. When the LCPS Superintendent Scott Ziegler spoke up in response, he asserted that “the predator transgender student or person simply does not exist” and that “we don’t have any record of assaults occurring in our restrooms.” According to Fox News, a judge found the boy guilty, and the father filed a lawsuit against the school.
Suppression of free speech seems to be “in the air,” and it’s frightening to discover that some conservatives, once the bastion of free speech defenders, are taking on an authoritarian posture. School board members have been known to tell community members not to make public comments at their board meetings. Everyone has the right to sign up to make public comments under open meetings law while respecting board protocols and decorum when making comments.
Recently, in North Carolina, after making public comments at a board meeting, Pastor John Amanchukwu was put in handcuffs and escorted out. Amanchukwu travels the country speaking at school board meetings to defend public school kids from dangerous woke culture in the classroom. Maybe in a different style, he did what hundreds or thousands of us nationwide did when making public comments at school board meetings. He asserted that the Board allowing pornographic content and discussions on gender identity in schools was a violation of parental rights.
Free speech may not always be welcomed by the hearer, but we are entitled to our opinions. The freedom to speak up about issues of concern is a hallowed right unique in human history, as expressed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It safeguards speech in the press, at an assembly, and the right to petition the government from governmental interference. Its protections include what we say and wear on a hat, a T-shirt, a sign, and other symbols. Yes, even at school board meetings.
However, freedom of speech appears to be eroding across the board, including on social media platforms. And this affects all issues of concern, including education. The recent SCOTUS case (Manhattan Community Access Corporation v. Halleck) determined that while freedom of speech applies to federal, state, and local governments, the First Amendment does not govern private entities. That makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is that this ruling is being applied to social media platforms. They are exempt from the responsibilities of a publisher. Yet, Facebook and other social media can regulate or restrict speech hosted on their platforms by manipulating algorithms to favor their friends and harm their enemies.
In addition to honestly examining whether our right to free speech is being infringed, we should also determine whether we are operating out of mutual respect when it comes to the free speech of others despite everyday differences of opinion. For example, what is the real reason that the Loudon County Public School Board decided to shut down certain kinds of speech at board meetings? Well, for one thing, in doing so, they are shutting down dissent. Government entity or not, this differs from where we should go as a society.
Tamra Farah has twenty years of experience in public policy and politics, focusing on protecting individual liberty and promoting limited government.
