Hillary Clinton into any trouble spot, come back in a month, and she will have made it better,” former President Bill Clinton famously proclaimed in a 2016 speech during his wife’s presidential campaign. His words painted a portrait of Hillary Clinton as a tireless problem-solver, able to rise above the chaos and leave every situation better than she found it.
But as the 2024 presidential race reaches its final stretch, Hillary’s re-emergence into the national political arena has reignited fierce debates, leaving many Americans questioning whether her influence is as constructive as her husband once suggested—or if she’s now become a hindrance to the free and open discourse vital to American democracy.
Hillary Clinton’s Latest Call for Censorship
Hillary’s recent appearance on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC talk show reignited these concerns, where she suggested the federal government should begin criminally prosecuting Americans who spread “propaganda.” Yet, troublingly, she provided no clear definition of what constitutes propaganda, leaving the door wide open for subjective interpretation. This lack of clarity has left critics worried that any dissenting voices could fall under the scope of this ambiguous term.
Clinton’s comments on Maddow are hardly her first foray into advocating for censorship. In 2021, she called for a “global reckoning with disinformation,” claiming that social media platforms were exacerbating societal ills by spreading false information without any accountability. At the time, her remarks coincided with the world grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic—a global catastrophe that, as it later emerged, had been at least partially fueled by controversial research funded by the U.S. government in Wuhan, China. This revelation—along with the subsequent denial by U.S. officials of their involvement—did not prompt outrage from Hillary, despite it being one of the most consequential acts of disinformation in recent memory.
Disinformation or Lag in Truth?
Critics argue that what is often labeled “disinformation” is, in reality, simply the lag between governmental statements and the subsequent revelation of truth. Hillary’s push for tighter controls on information dissemination also aligns with a broader trend seen in the Biden administration, which has faced allegations of attempting to suppress free speech under the guise of combating misinformation. This trend has extended to Kamala Harris, Biden’s Vice President and a leading figure in the 2024 election. Harris, in her capacity as head of a White House disinformation task force, has repeatedly emphasized the need to protect women and LGBTQI+ politicians from online abuse, arguing that such harassment could undermine democracy. But many Americans question the blurry line between criticism and censorship—especially when the targets are public figures whose positions and policies should be scrutinized.
In fact, Vice President Harris has argued in various forums that hate speech and misinformation do not enjoy protection under the First Amendment. This stance, echoed by others like Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, implies that certain speech—especially that which challenges the integrity of democracy—should be curtailed. However, opponents see this as an alarming shift toward silencing dissent. The question remains: who gets to decide what constitutes misinformation?
The Perils of Censorship: A Look at Clinton’s Past
Hillary Clinton’s career is replete with examples where transparency and accountability took a back seat. As Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, she infamously set up a private email server at her New York mansion, bypassing official government channels and exempting herself from the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In total, 30,000 emails were destroyed using a program called BleachBit, despite these communications being under subpoena by a congressional committee. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s lenient treatment of Clinton, which included forgoing subpoenas, raised questions about how justice is applied to America’s political elite, particularly those aligned with the Democratic Party.
Federal judge Royce Lamberth called the email cover-up “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency,” while an Inspector General report criticized the FBI for failing to take more aggressive measures to retrieve the lost emails. The lack of accountability, combined with the cover-up of foreign aid failures under Clinton’s purview at the State Department, painted a picture of a politician committed to shielding herself from scrutiny while championing transparency in foreign governments.
From Champion of Truth to Censor?
Hillary’s shift from championing investigative journalism abroad during her tenure as Secretary of State to advocating censorship at home marks a troubling evolution. During her time in the State Department, she supported grants aimed at promoting investigative journalism in developing countries, arguing that exposing government abuses was key to good governance. However, it appears that this commitment to truth-telling did not extend to U.S. soil. The same administration that lauded transparency abroad was simultaneously burying domestic scandals, from foreign aid mismanagement to her infamous email scandal.
Perhaps most telling is Clinton’s own interpretation of George Orwell’s 1984. In her 2017 memoir What Happened, she bizarrely concluded that the novel’s warning about totalitarianism actually underscored the importance of trusting leaders and experts. To Hillary, the true danger lay in those who undermined trust in authority, not in the unchecked power of those in charge. This misreading of Orwell reveals a mindset that sees criticism of leaders as inherently dangerous—an attitude that seems to underlie her recent calls for censorship.
Russia, Trump, and the Censorship Playbook
Hillary’s disdain for dissent reached its zenith during the 2016 presidential election when she and her campaign orchestrated a strategy to tie then-candidate Donald Trump to Russian interference. According to Special Counsel John Durham’s 2022 report, Clinton approved a plan to use this narrative as a means of deflecting public attention from her email scandal. The FBI, relying on this “Clinton Plan,” launched a series of investigations into Trump’s campaign, resulting in years of political discord and division.
Ultimately, the claims of Russian collusion proved to be largely unsubstantiated, with the FBI’s actions being widely criticized for their lack of evidence and reliance on disinformation—ironically the very thing Hillary claims to be fighting. In 2022, the Federal Election Commission fined Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee for their role in funding the Steele dossier, which had fueled much of the Russia-Trump narrative. Yet, this major transgression has been largely glossed over in the national conversation about disinformation.
The Growing Threat to Free Speech
In her quest to stamp out “disinformation,” Hillary Clinton seems to be advocating for a system where the government holds the power to decide what constitutes truth. This is a dangerous precedent, particularly when viewed alongside the broader Biden administration’s censorship efforts, which have been met with fierce opposition. Earlier this year, a federal judge issued an injunction to block the Biden administration’s communications with social media companies aimed at suppressing certain viewpoints. Representative Nancy Mace (R-SC) went so far as to accuse the administration of “advertising its willingness to manipulate” online discourse in a letter to the White House.
The suppression of speech is not only a legal issue but a moral one. The First Amendment was designed to protect all speech—even speech that is unpopular, critical, or uncomfortable. But if disinformation becomes synonymous with dissent, and if politicians like Hillary Clinton are successful in criminalizing propaganda, how long before Americans find themselves stripped of their right to challenge those in power?
A New Era of Censorship?
Hillary Clinton’s latest push for censorship is a reflection of the profound shifts in American political culture. Once, liberals championed free speech with few exceptions. Today, however, many on the left—including Clinton—seem willing to silence opposition in the name of protecting democracy. But this shift begs the question: can democracy survive without the very freedoms that define it?
As Americans look to the 2024 election and beyond, they are left with the daunting prospect that their rights to speak freely and criticize their leaders may be hanging in the balance. Will Hillary Clinton’s call for criminalizing “propaganda” open the floodgates for government overreach and the suppression of dissent? Or will a renewed commitment to free speech emerge from the public backlash against this growing trend of censorship? Only time will tell, but one thing is clear: America’s democratic future depends on its citizens’ ability to speak freely, without fear of prosecution or silencing.
