The government that deports students for demonstrations in defense of Palestinians and blocks access to journalists who do not adopt certain terms imposed by the White House will “censor” citizens and technology companies.
This is the latest episode of freedom of expression when it is appropriate, the Trump government motto.
This defense of freedom of expression is, in fact, a defense of the economic interests of the US.
Behind it all is one goal: to prevent Big Techs regulation.
In February, at the AI summit in France, US Vice President Jd Vance made it clear from what it is. In March, Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission of the US, said European technology laws violate freedom of expression.
According to Carr, the EU digital services law, which provides fines for Big Tech, is “incompatible with the tradition of freedom of expression in America and the commitments of technology companies to maintain a diversity of opinions.”
This is the same Brendan Carr that threatened not to approve the merger of NBC American TV station if it did not respect the Trump government’s determination to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion programs. And that investigates the CBS broadcaster for the edition that the 69 Minutes program made of an interview by then -Democratic candidate Kamala Harris.
In February, deputy JD Vance spent a similar message at the AI summit in Paris. “The Trump government is bothered by reports that some foreign governments are considering squeezing the siege of American technology companies. America will not accept it.”
He added: “The Trump government will ensure that AI systems developed in America do not have an ideological bias and will never restrict our citizens’ rights to freedom of expression.”
This is the same US government that revoked visas from hundreds of foreign students in the US because they are involved in activities that are supposed to go against US interests.
Many of them simply expressed support for Gaza Palestinians in statements considered “anti -Semitic” by the Trump administration.
Harvard University had billions in government resources cut by refusing to adapt its curriculum to the Trump government dictates and to give detailed information about its foreign students.
It was also this “against censorship” government that prevented Associated Press reporters’ entry into events in the White House, because the agency did not want to adopt the new Trump government nomenclature to the Gulf of Mexico – which was renamed Gulf of America by decree. It is important to remember that AP has customers worldwide, where this new language imposed by Trump is not worth.
We have already seen that there is an amalgam between the interests of technology companies and the Trump government and the limits between public and private sector are increasingly faint. A good example was the performance of the State Department in the Rumble versus case.
Trump’s media company and Rumble filed a joint action at an American Federal Court against the minister of. Companies claim that orders from Moraes determining that Rumble closed the account of the scholarship influencer Allan dos Santos and provides his user data violate the sovereignty of, the American Constitution and the country’s laws.
Days later, the US government took the fight. In the official account of a division of the State Department, the government said that “respect for sovereignty is a two -way road with all US partners, including Brazil.”
He said: “Block access to information and imposing fines on US -based companies for refusing to censor people living in the United States is incompatible with democratic values, including freedom of expression.”
With the warning on Wednesday (28) of Secretary Marco Rubio on revocation of visas from foreign authorities who practice censorship, the US prepare the land to say that the Brazilian government restricts freedom of expression and retaliation with tariffs or other instruments attempts to impose Big Techs regulation.
They will unite the useful with the pleasant: protect their companies and use the noble defense of freedom of expression hypocritical when it suits.
