Hillary Clinton has spent decades working—both subtly and overtly—to crush free speech in America when it serves her political ambitions. Her most recent comments are a prime example of just how far she’s willing to go. In a recent interview with CNN’s Michael Smerconish, Clinton explicitly warned that if social media companies don’t moderate content more aggressively, “we lose total control.” This admission reveals not only her desire for increased control over information but also her broader agenda of suppressing opposing voices to consolidate her power.

Clinton’s demand for greater federal control over online platforms through the repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Act is at the heart of her latest push. This crucial law protects internet platforms from being held liable for user-generated content. By dismantling these protections, Clinton seeks to grant the government sweeping authority to impose strict content moderation, effectively allowing her and her political allies to decide what can be seen or said online. Repealing Section 230 would mark the beginning of an era where the federal government can silence dissent and suppress free speech on one of the last platforms for open dialogue—the Internet.

In effect, it turns platforms like X or Facebook from functioning as neutral carriers—much like telephone companies or postal services—into publishers, making them responsible for every piece of content posted by users. The original intent of Section 230 was to provide platforms with the necessary freedom from liability, shielding them in a way that upheld the values of the First Amendment. But repealing it could be seen as part of a broader effort by the Democratic Party to erode constitutional limits on government and free speech protections, effectively ending the First Amendment’s ability to safeguard citizens from government overreach.

A History of Crushing Opposition

Clinton’s history of attempting to muzzle free speech dates back to her earliest days in politics. One notable example is her involvement in the Citizens United case, where she opposed the rights of private citizens and organizations to make independent political expenditures. Clinton’s drive to limit political donations was framed as campaign finance reform, but it was widely perceived as an effort to curb conservative voices that were critical of her policies. The Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court allowed greater political freedom in spending, but Clinton’s opposition to it was a clear indication that she favored limiting speech when it threatened her political career.

Her most insidious efforts, however, have come under the banner of “hate speech” laws and initiatives designed to curtail criticism of Islam. One of the clearest examples of this was her support for UNHRC Resolution 16/18, which sought to criminalize speech that could be perceived as “incitement to violence.” Cloaked under the guise of combating religious intolerance, this resolution was a dangerous step toward establishing global blasphemy laws, which would have severely restricted free speech. Clinton was one of the architects behind this resolution, holding meetings in Washington to discuss its implementation and laying the groundwork for policies that would silence critics of Islam worldwide.

This effort continued on the domestic front with her support for House Resolution 569 in 2015. Introduced just days after the ISIS-inspired terrorist attack in San Bernardino, the resolution condemned what it called “hateful rhetoric” against Muslims. The timing was telling: Clinton and her allies were quick to push legislation that made it appear as though Muslims were the victims, rather than addressing the very real threat of radical Islamic terrorism. The resolution conveniently ignored that the vast majority of religiously motivated hate crimes in the U.S. are committed against Jews, not Muslims. Instead, it sought to criminalize criticism of Islam under the pretense of combating hate speech, all while turning a blind eye to the far more widespread attacks on Jewish Americans.

Section 230 and the New Front in Clinton’s War on Free Speech

Clinton’s latest attack on free speech comes in the form of her desire to repeal Section 230, which protects online platforms from being held liable for third-party content. By stripping away this protection, Clinton seeks to empower the federal government to impose “guardrails” on what can be said online. Under her proposed framework, platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and others would be forced to moderate content far more aggressively, ultimately silencing voices that don’t align with the mainstream narrative. This move would disproportionately affect conservatives and dissenters who already face de-platforming and censorship for challenging leftist policies on issues such as immigration, gender ideology, and public health.

Clinton’s comments to Smerconish, where she lamented the lack of national action to regulate social media, are just the latest in a series of alarming statements. She previously suggested that Americans accused of spreading so-called “propaganda” in support of former President Trump should face civil or even criminal charges. This echoes the same tactics Clinton used after her 2016 election loss, where she pushed the narrative that “Russian interference” and misinformation were responsible for her defeat, rather than acknowledging the legitimate concerns many Americans had with her candidacy.

Criminalizing Criticism and the Orwellian Istanbul Process

The broader implications of Clinton’s war on free speech become even clearer when examining her international efforts. Her backing of UNHRC Resolution 16/18, known as the “Istanbul Process,” sought to limit speech globally that could be deemed “discriminatory” or inciting violence against religion. What began as an effort to shield Islam from criticism morphed into a global campaign to censor anything considered offensive to religious groups—particularly Muslims. The Istanbul Process was an attempt to undermine the First Amendment by creating international pressure to criminalize speech that offended Islamic sensibilities.

The resolution is eerily similar to efforts Clinton supported domestically, such as House Resolution 569, which attempted to redefine what constitutes a hate crime. Instead of protecting all religious groups, Clinton and her allies focused narrowly on Muslims, using this framework to create an environment where any criticism of Islam could be labeled as hate speech, effectively silencing legitimate debate about the religion and its role in global terrorism.

It’s important to note a critical distinction here: laws such as UN Resolution 16/18 protect the religion itself from criticism, whereas laws protecting Jewish people or other groups focus on protecting individuals from discrimination, not shielding the religion from scrutiny. This is a fundamental difference, as the First Amendment was designed to ensure the freedom to criticize religious and political authorities remains unassailable. Clinton’s support for these international measures threatens to dismantle this core principle, enabling the criminalization of speech that questions or critiques religious ideologies, particularly Islam.

The Real Danger: Hillary’s Long-Term Vision of Control

Hillary Clinton’s drive to crush free speech is not about protecting people from harm—it’s about consolidating control. Her decades-long history of advocating for policies that silence dissent, whether through campaign finance reform, international resolutions, or content moderation, reveals a disturbing pattern. Clinton’s fear is not that harmful speech will spread, but that she will lose control over the narrative. Her comments about losing “total control” of social media reflect a mindset that views open dialogue and dissent as threats to her political power.

If Clinton’s vision were realized, Americans would face a future where dissenting voices are criminalized and online platforms are forced to operate under the watchful eye of the federal government. Social media, one of the few remaining outlets for free speech, would be transformed into a tightly controlled space where only government-approved opinions are allowed.

Conclusion: A Call to Defend Free Speech

The American people must recognize the dangerous path Hillary Clinton and others like her are pushing us down. Free speech is not just a right to be cherished—it is a fundamental safeguard against tyranny. As Clinton continues her long-standing campaign to silence dissent, Americans must remain vigilant and fight to protect their First Amendment rights. If we allow her vision of government-controlled speech to become reality, we may soon find ourselves unable to speak out at all.