Congress investigates Stanford University over secret collaboration in global surveillance – NaturalNews.com
Congress investigates Stanford University for secret collaboration in global surveillance
- A congressional committee is investigating Stanford University for allegedly hosting a secret meeting with foreign officials to coordinate global surveillance.
- The House Judiciary Committee, led by Representative Jim Jordan, claims the effort targets American speech and undermines the First Amendment.
- The investigation focuses on the Cyber Policy Center at Stanford University, which has a documented history of cooperating with US agencies to flag online content for removal.
- Foreign laws, such as the European Union’s Digital Services Act, are cited as tools used to pressure tech platforms to censor content globally.
- Critics describe these activities as a “regulatory industrial complex” that uses international partnerships to circumvent US constitutional protections.
A secret meeting at Stanford University has led to a congressional investigation into allegations that the prestigious institution is facilitating a global scheme to censor American citizens. The US House Judiciary Committee, led by its Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), is demanding answers from Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center after a whistleblower revealed that it hosted a secret roundtable with foreign regulators from countries known for aggressive online expression laws. This investigation highlights a growing concern about national security and civil liberties: the export of foreign surveillance regimes to the United States, potentially undermining the First Amendment through international cooperation.
Foreign Oversight Association
According to an October 22 letter from Jordan to the center’s director, the undisclosed September roundtable included officials from the European Union, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Brazil. The keynote speaker was reported to be Julie Inman-Grant, Australia’s e-safety commissioner, who has publicly called for the government’s power to enforce global content takedowns. The Commission claims that the event aims to “encourage and facilitate oversight compliance” with foreign regulatory bodies. Jordan’s letter frames this as a direct threat, stating that “Stanford is working with foreign oversight officials to invalidate the First Amendment.” The center was given until November 5 to issue all relevant documents and communications.
A pattern of cooperation in the field of internal control
This is not the first time Stanford’s cyber initiatives have come under scrutiny. The university’s Stanford Internet Observatory, part of the Cyber Policy Center, has been a major player in what critics have called the “oversight industrial complex.” Previously released “Twitter Files” documented how the Observatory collaborated with federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), to flag and remove social media posts that question official narratives about the coronavirus and the election. A previous report by the House of Representatives judiciary accused the center of “laundering requests for government censorship” on social media platforms, enabling the government to secretly “silence voices” it does not approve of.
The global legal structure for speech control
The investigation points to a broader strategy in which U.S.-based entities allegedly help enforce foreign laws that enforce global censorship. The main mechanism is the EU Digital Services Act (DSA). An interim staff report issued by the Judiciary Committee in July concluded that the Digital Services Act acts as a “censorship tool” that forces major social media platforms to change their global content moderation policies. The report details how tough financial penalties imposed by the Digital Services Act incentivize platforms to suppress content that EU regulators consider “misinformation” or “hate speech,” which can include basic political speech and satire. Similar laws in the UK and Australia are amplifying this global pressure on technology companies.
- The European Union’s DSA law can impose fines of up to six percent of a company’s global revenue.
- The UK’s Internet Safety Act has led to thousands of arrests related to online speech.
- The Australian Internet Safety Act enables the Cyber Safety Commission to target global content.
A final tour of the constitution
Legal and political experts see these developments as a dangerous development in censorship methods. Having faced legal challenges and public backlash over domestic censorship efforts, the same network of actors appears to be leveraging international partnerships and foreign legal structures to achieve what the U.S. Constitution directly prohibits the federal government from doing. One critic called it “an attempt to circumvent the basic rights of Americans, using foreign legislation and international partnerships as tools to suppress speech.” Funding for the recently unveiled roundtable at Stanford University came from the Freedom Project Institute, with support from businessman Frank McCourt, suggesting that private money is also flowing into these efforts to shape global digital governance.
A precedent with far-reaching consequences
The congressional investigation into Stanford is more than just an isolated investigation; It is a crucial front in a larger battle over digital sovereignty and freedom of expression. The finding could set a precedent for how the United States responds to the extraterritorial application of foreign expression laws and the role of American institutions in global censorship networks. As this investigation unfolds, it highlights a fundamental question about whether First Amendment protections can be maintained in the face of a coordinated international effort to regulate online speech, defining the future of Americans’ freedom of expression in the digital public square.
Sources for this article include:
(tags for translation) Big Government
Post Comment