Jim Jordan demands answers over censorship from Stanford's 'disinformation' center
Congressman Jim Jordan has demanded that Stanford University’s Stanford Internet Observatory clarify its role and activities related to election-related speech monitoring ahead of the 2024 election.
Congressman Jim Jordan has demanded that Stanford University’s Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO) clarify its role and activities related to election-related speech monitoring ahead of the 2024 election, citing concerns about potential First Amendment violations and censorship.
“The Committee on the Judiciary and the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government are conducting oversight of how and to what extent the Executive Branch has coerced or colluded with companies and other intermediaries to censor lawful speech,” Representative Jordan wrote in a June 24 letter, which was obtained by National Review.
As part of the investigation, the committee subpoenaed documents about “work relating to content moderation.”
“Given the SIO’s role in the censorship of Americans in the lead-up to the 2020 election, and your client’s repeated false and/or misleading statements to the Committee and the Select Subcommittee, we remain concerned about what actions the SIO or its ‘remnants’ will take in the lead-up to the 2024 election that are antithetical to the First Amendment and Americans’ right to free expression,” Representative Jordan stated.
Jordan’s letter concludes his letter by asking whether or not SIO will “support any monitoring, analysis, or research of Americans’ election-related speech in the lead-up to the 2024 election” and whether it intends to work with “any part of the Executive Branch.”
The congressman asked for responses to his queries by July 1.
The purpose of SIO, which is a part of Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center, is to investigate ‘disinformation,’ especially on social media. It has pledged that it will, by monitoring speech online, “defend democracy.”
However, skeptics say that SIO, more than anything else, results in undue censorship, especially if it acts in coordination with the federal government, as noted by The Stanford Review.
Some commentators say the research center is in decline, with its founding director, Alex Stamos, having resigned from his position in November 2023.
[RELATED: Stanford agrees to four demands after negotiations with students ‘aligned with Hamas’]
An article from Platformer on June 13 reported that Stanford’s administration is “quietly dismantling SIO” in response to criticism because the “university seems to have calculated that the lab had become more trouble than it is worth.” Representative Jordan responded to the Platformer article by posting to X on June 14, “Free speech wins again!”
However, the university clarified in a June 17 update that “Stanford has not shut down or dismantled SIO as a result of outside pressure. SIO does, however, face funding challenges as its founding grants will soon be exhausted.”
Campus Reform has contacted Stanford University for comment. This article will be updated accordingly.
