First, digital conversations on “matters of public concern,” legally the centerpiece of First Amendment jurisprudence, were consistently blocked by partisan social-media operators throughout the 2020 election cycle. That alone is arresting; it has changed public access to information and calls for action.

Social-media companies moved from offering a “public forum” (with concurrent legal duties, including openness) to a “content editor” (typically imposing higher liability, such as for defamation), then into the unseemly, otherworldly role of kingmaker. By appearances, they know exactly what they are doing — no apologies.

Second, critical information — official, highly damning material, and verifiably accurate information concerning Joe Biden’s son, apparently under investigation for months — was blocked by these social-media giants, potentially affecting the election. The nub is that this information not only reflected poorly on the Democrat presidential candidate — now president-elect — but [I believe] implicated him. 

Only after the election did we learn that data blocked could be objectively disqualifying. If members of Joe Biden’s family, close for years, are under investigation for trading access for money, who is the “him” guilty of offering access? It takes to two to tango, as they say — and Joe Biden is one of the two.

All this becomes even more insidious, objectionable, and arguably unconstitutional, when explicit and implied financial assistance, political advocacy, and campaign-tipping support is aligned with the Democratic Party. 

In effect, political actors — soon running the federal government — have been assisted in shutting out the truth, in order to acquire power — and this power, in turn, serves the personal, financial, and political agenda of those who control the social-media giants.

The time has come to separate mass power over information and the Democratic Party. More, the time has come to open these social-media giants to antitrust actions, public and private, and end the now-absurd notion that they should be immune from civil lawsuits, because they must be nurtured. 

They have been effectively nurtured into monster-hood, a societal overlord position that allows dominance, controls critical information, and shuts off information flow essential to a free, open, and properly informed republic. 

What power do these social media and big-tech players have? Beyond the ability to distort public dialogue on “matters of public concern” — including blocking a December AMAC podcast discussing election lawsuits — these giants have become sources of mass dependence. 

For example, on Dec. 14, social-media users around the globe personally and professionally suffered the impact of a mass-access outage, shutting off access not only to dialogue, but also to mass databases. That downtime impacted everything from business communications, website accessibility, data access, and distance learning — shutting schools. 

The outage also illustrated how much dependence has arisen on these information-controlling outlets. Paired with political manipulation, the outage raises serious questions about the role, responsibility, and regulation of these huge, largely uncontrolled social media and high-tech companies.

In a nutshell, the time has come to open these oligopolistic companies to civil liability — beginning with a repeal of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Then, we must aggressively regulate, deconstruct, break up, reduce the influence of, de-politicize, and hold accountable these digital behemoths.

The influence of big tech on America on our social harmony, mental health, basic human interactions, decision-making, political stability, institutional and political accountability, commerce, and contentment — in short, their manipulation of the public mind — is working at cross-purposes with democracy.

It has become a threat to the free flow of information vital for sustaining a free republic, not only teaming with powerful political actors (including socialist ideologues and promotors of leftist violence), but also undermining the currency of any democracy, the guarantee of citizen free speech.

So, looking back on history, the most heinous deprivations of individual liberty — including impairment of the God-given freedoms of worship, assembly, travel, protest, self-defense, confronting accusers, fair trial, no false imprisonment, harm to life or limb, fear of government — all begin with loss of free speech. 

That is why the outrage of the moment is a talisman of our future. If Americans will see and speak truth, enact laws that protect political, personal, and professional free speech — rather than empowering oppressors of free speech — we can rise above this. If we do not act, we will wish we had. The First Amendment is under siege, and most Americans know it. We do not need more political violence. We need free speech, and protection of it. The time — if there ever was one — is now, to say so.             

Robert Charles is national spokesman for the Association of Mature American Citizens (AMAC). The 2.3-million-member AMAC says it is a senior advocacy organization. Charles is a former assistant secretary of state for President George W. Bush, former naval intelligence officer, and litigator. He served in the Reagan and Bush 41 White Houses, as congressional counsel for five years, and wrote “Narcotics and Terrorism” (2003) and “Eagles and Evergreens” (2018), the latter on WW II vets in a Maine town.

The United States and Europe led the world in pursuit of freedom and democracy in the post-World War II period. Relying on shared values, including a commitment to democratic governance and human rights, we shaped an international order that improved life for people around the world. 

Today, our sense of shared values remains, but our leadership is being challenged, partly because of the rise of China, which is building a growing economy, lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and distributing investments in many other countries. China, of course, seeks to reduce our influence in global affairs, and especially in the vast Asian-Pacific region. 

I am cautious about the phrase “America first” to define or explain our policy. It carries more than a touch of overconfidence, even arrogance. 

Some pundits suggest we are facing the end of the West. I think that is bogus, but we are in a place where we need to re-energize our global leadership. 

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the political philosopher Francis Fukuyama wrote of “the end of history,” arguing there would be universal support for representative democracy and free markets. The rise of an authoritarian China and the growth of Western divisions have put that thesis to the test. But certainly, Americans have come to better understand the challenges to our power and the constraints on it. 

With a new president taking office, it’s a good time for the U.S. to again bring Europe and other allies on board in global leadership. While not easy, it’s crucially important. It requires understanding that not only our national interest but our values, including the promotion of democracy and respect for all persons, stand at the core of our foreign policy. 

While China’s rise has been noteworthy, we should not ignore China’s harmful policies — arresting dissidents, expelling foreign journalists, operating detention camps in Xinjiang Province, and so on. At the same time, we need to counter Iran’s aggressive steps in the Middle East and Russia’s interventions in other countries. 

We have quite a few tools to accomplish these tasks, and we need to use them skillfully. We can use economic measures like imposing sanctions, freezing assets, and targeting individuals for financial penalties. We can expose corruption and support friendly, effective leaders. We can extend and expand arms-control agreements to include new weapons systems and threats. We can exploit the divisions that weaken our rivals. We can advance global cooperation, push for open economies, and lead the world in fighting climate change and other threats. 

All of this requires that we maintain our military preparedness and be willing to use force when necessary. In general, we should look for ways to reduce our troop levels around the world, while maintaining our global leadership. We should not run for the exits but act pragmatically and prudently. For example, we should retain a modest military presence in the Middle East, for now, to counter terrorism by remnants of the Islamic State group. 

Our intelligence gathering should be central to our role in the world. We need a large stable of experts who know what is going on in the world and what actions will be effective. 

We should keep in mind that the U.S. should be a benign power, to be a force for good in the world. The moral component of our foreign policy is not just window dressing. It should be at the forefront of our policy.                      

Lee Hamilton, 89, is a senior advisor for the Indiana University (IU) Center on Representative Government, distinguished scholar at IU Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies, and professor of practice at the IU O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Hamilton, a Democrat, was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years (1965-1999), representing a district in south central Indiana.