“If you’re not at least a little afraid of what you’re saying, you’re probably not saying anything that really matters”

Lesen Sie die deutsche Version hier.

Michael Shellenberger, you often make provocative statements that lead to sharp criticism. Have you ever been afraid to speak your mind?

I am afraid to speak my mind all the time.

Why?

For reasons everyone understands: in today’s environment, speaking your mind – on many issues, even when it means acknowledging basic realities – can be dangerous. I consider myself extremely fortunate to have survived professionally after saying what I’ve said. As you get older, you gain confidence, especially when you see people later acknowledging points you made years ago. Take nuclear power, for example: it is now a mainstream issue in the United States and, in fact, more popular than renewables. On other topics as well, those of us who voiced uncomfortable truths have ultimately been proven right. But in the moment, if you’re not at least a little afraid of what you’re saying, you’re probably not saying anything that really matters.

«In today’s environment, speaking your mind even when it means acknowledging basic realities – can be dangerous.»

Have you changed your mind on certain topics?

Yes – on most issues, actually. I’m almost never the first person to say something. My contribution has been to bring existing ideas together and synthesize them. I’ve also tried to show why people with liberal values should rethink their positions on a range of issues – from energy and the environment to addiction, mental illness, homelessness, free speech, and migration. For those of us who came from the left – and I came from the radical left and later the liberal left – there is now a whole set of positions that are difficult to reconcile with what were still considered liberal values just fifteen or twenty years ago. In many respects, I’m standing on the shoulders of people who showed far more courage than I ever have.

Has your own intellectual journey influenced your position on free speech?

Yes, definitely. For a long time, I wasn’t especially concerned about censorship by social media platforms or governments. It simply wasn’t my focus – until we began working on the Twitter Files in December 2022. Ironically, I myself had been censored as recently as 2020. What shocked me about the Twitter Files – and, more recently, the release of a major report by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee on European demands for censorship, including of Americans – was seeing the evidence laid out in full. For years, people called us conspiracy theorists. Now there are thousands of pages of documentation showing how the censorship industrial complex actually operates across borders: through the European Commission, the Department of Homeland Security, and increasingly at the state level in places like California. My personal experience made me aware that censorship existed. What I didn’t understand until much later was how systematic it is, how closely tied it is to the intelligence community, and how deeply it is rooted in the foreign policy establishment.

«For years, people called us conspiracy theorists. Now there are thousands of pages of documentation showing how the censorship industrial complex actually operates across borders.»

You were the co-editor of the “Twitter Files”. Which findings surprised you the most?

I think the Twitter thread I wrote on the Hunter Biden laptop may be the most important piece of journalism I’ve ever been involved in. The case itself is crucial because it reveals several things at once. First, it shows that the FBI was effectively running a disinformation operation designed to shape how people perceived the Hunter Biden laptop. The laptop clearly documented decades of influence peddling – Hunter Biden selling access to his father to the Chinese government and other foreign interests, involving tens of millions of dollars. Joe Biden played a direct role in supporting these relationships. The FBI then spread disinformation about the Hunter Biden laptop and used that disinformation to justify demands for censorship. That matters because it reveals a broader pattern: over the past five years, the most consequential cases of censorship have involved efforts to suppress information that later turned out to be true. We saw this when a Harvard medical professor was censored for stating that natural immunity exists – something known since antiquity.

You mean Martin Kulldorff.

Yes. What we see, again and again, is people demanding the censorship of accurate information. The government’s role in this is substantial, and the operations involved are highly sophisticated. These are not crude, World War II–style psychological operations. They focus on stories – on what they call “narratives” – because we know that people think, remember, and make sense of the world through stories. Control the narrative, and you influence how people think and behave. For me, this was the most important case study. It opened my eyes to a broader model of censorship by proxy: governments, including the European Commission, creating or funding NGOs whose explicit task is to shape and control the narrative.

You coined the term “censorship industrial complex.” What do you mean by it, and who is part of this network?

The concept is borrowed from President Eisenhower’s famous warning about the “military-industrial complex.” Eisenhower cautioned that think tanks funded by the Defense Department, defense contractors, the U.S. government, and private interests could distort American foreign policy and drag the country into unnecessary wars. That is essentially what we are seeing today. We have networks populated by people from the intelligence community who then move into organizations that pressure social media platforms to censor content – often with a clear left-wing ideological bias on issues such as climate change, COVID, and transgenderism. This is not a past phenomenon; it is ongoing censorship. What we are witnessing is an extension of the foreign-policy establishment. These mechanisms emerged when social-media tools – initially used by U.S. and European intelligence services to shape narratives and mobilize protesters during the Arab Spring and the so-called color revolutions – were turned inward after Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. At that point, elements of the deep state, para-state think tanks, and former intelligence officials began creating NGOs that function as instruments of censorship by proxy. That, at its core, is the censorship industrial complex.

What is the number one reason why freedom of speech is essential for a liberal democracy?

We cannot have democracy, scientific progress, or human progress without free speech. We cannot solve epidemics or protect our societies without it. Freedom of speech is foundational. Historically, it emerged as a value before democracy itself. In Europe, kings gradually allowed more speech, which led to more publications and broader public debate, especially after the invention of the printing press. Its fullest realization came in the United States, where the founders asserted that free speech precedes government. In much of Europe, by contrast, free speech was incrementally granted by monarchs and governments – and to this day, authorities often assume the power to decide how much speech is permitted. The American idea is fundamentally different: you have free speech first, and through that freedom you constitute the government. On a personal level, this is the only cause that I would be willing to die for. I do not want to live as a subhuman, a slave, or a feudal serf – and I do not want my children to live that way either. Without freedom of speech, you cannot express your views about government or society. You are not a full human being; you are a subject of totalitarian rule. Many generations in the West have fought and died to secure this freedom. We owe it to them – and to ourselves – to commit to defending it.

«The American idea is fundamentally different: you have free speech first, and through that freedom you constitute the government.»

In the context of recent protests against ICE in Minneapolis and other cities, you have criticized leftists for inciting or provoking violence. Would you say this is an instance of speech that should be prohibited because it leads to violence?

Absolutely not. Free speech is essential – even in heated moments like the recent protests in Minneapolis following fatal shootings by federal immigration agents. Journalists and citizens alike should be able to film police and federal officers up close, and I strongly support body cameras for law enforcement officers. Being able to document what happens is critical. But that doesn’t mean people should interfere with active police operations. Two things can be true at once: you should be allowed to film officers doing their jobs, but you shouldn’t put yourself – or others – at risk by obstructing an operation. If someone interferes with a police or federal enforcement action, especially while armed, they are putting themselves and others in danger. In one of the tragic incidents in Minneapolis, an ICU nurse who was killed by federal agents during protests was reported to have been involved in a confrontation with agents shortly before he was shot; authorities said he was armed and resisted attempts to disarm him. So no: speech and documentation that expose questionable actions by authorities should not be prohibited. But physical interference in an ongoing enforcement action – especially when it creates a risk of violence – crosses a different line entirely.

Is there a legitimate limit to freedom of speech in your opinion?

The kind of speech that critics point to around recent Anti-ICE demonstrations – including in Minneapolis – should not be prohibited simply because it provokes strong reactions. In the United States and many other democracies, free speech has recognised limits, and they’re quite ordinary: you cannot immediately incite imminent violence, deliberately defame someone to harm their livelihood, commit fraud, or lie to steal from someone. Those are sensible, longstanding legal boundaries. In the specific cases you asked about, the people who were tragically killed were not shot for peacefully expressing their views. The fatal shootings by federal immigration agents occurred during enforcement operations where those individuals were involved in confrontational situations – for example, attempting to interfere with agents – not while merely speaking or protesting. That distinction is important: exercising First Amendment rights and engaging in direct interference with an operation are not the same thing. Free speech remains essential, but it does not cover acts that create an immediate physical danger.

At a recent event in Zurich, you criticized the Trump administration for revoking green cards from foreign nationals accused of antisemitism. What are your specific concerns?

For the most part, I don’t want to see people’s speech used as a criterion for whether they are granted a visa to the United States. If you have two applicants and one openly calls for the death of all Americans, that is obviously relevant in a visa decision. But if a student participates in anti-Israel protests, revoking their visa on that basis would, in my view, violate the spirit of free speech. My position may even be more permissive than that of the Supreme Court, since the government does have broad authority over visas. Still, I have a wider concern about the Trump administration’s approach to free speech. It has done some genuinely good things in this area, but where it has erred on the side of censorship – including the visa issue and the withholding of university funding over anti-Israel speech – I think it has made a mistake. These actions may be constitutional, but they run counter to the ethos of the First Amendment. Calls for censorship by the president and some cabinet members are unnecessary and counterproductive, and they risk undermining the administration’s otherwise positive record on free speech.

So, broadly speaking, you are not disappointed with the Trump administration when it comes to free speech?

Overall, I’m largely satisfied – probably somewhere between two-thirds and three-quarters, though it’s hard to put an exact number on it. For instance, I was prepared to criticize the administration on certain free-speech issues back in December, but just days later they revoked the passports of individuals involved in censorship efforts abroad. I supported those revocations, because those people are key figures in the censorship industrial complex. That kind of action is necessary to defend free speech. I try to be consistent: I criticize the administration when I think it’s wrong and praise it when I think it’s right.

You’ve pointed to differences between the United States and Europe. Would you say the threat to free speech is greater in the U.S. or in Europe?

It is much greater in Europe. The House Judiciary Committee recently published a major report, spanning thousands of pages, documenting how the European Commission has pressured social media platforms to implement extensive censorship. Two aspects are particularly troubling. First, the European Commission has demanded that platforms censor speech critical of what it labels “authoritative sources,” such as the World Health Organization or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That runs directly counter to how science and democracy advance. Progress depends on the freedom to question and criticize authorities. This kind of censorship is profoundly totalitarian and deeply disturbing. Second, the Commission has insisted – and TikTok has complied – that mainstream news media be treated as authoritative sources. Yet those outlets have been wrong on many issues in the past. Even if one believes they are generally right, it is unethical and dangerous to censor speech based on what a select group of experts happen to believe at a given moment. That is not how science develops, and it is not how healthy societies function.

What dangers do you see in the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA)?

I think it should be abolished. Some argue it contains positive elements, and it’s true that German courts, in particular, have occasionally been used to defend free speech. Still, I see no compelling justification for the DSA. Its core purpose is to censor and shape narratives on social media. Take a recent example: Paris prosecutors raided the offices of X. At the same time, governments in Spain, France, Britain, Australia, and Switzerland are all moving toward digital identification, effectively ending online anonymity. Yet anonymity is precisely what enables people to expose secret or illegal activities by governments and other powerful actors. What we are witnessing is a broad effort by states to control everything we see and say online. It’s also impossible to ignore the political context. European leaders are more unpopular than they have been in decades, with dangerously low levels of legitimacy. Major elections are approaching in France, Germany, and Britain. The European Commission has demanded censorship ahead of elections, and the assault on free speech increasingly overlaps with attacks on free and fair elections themselves. In Romania, elections were cancelled under the pretext of “misinformation,” and similar threats have been made in France and elsewhere. This is an exceptionally dangerous moment in history. Events are accelerating, and the direction is not predetermined. We could move further toward totalitarian control – or toward governments recommitting themselves to free speech. The stakes could not be higher.

How do you explain this growing trend toward tighter limits on free speech in Europe in particular? What do you see as the driving forces behind it?

It’s happening across the West. I interview people in Ireland, Paris, Switzerland, Germany, Berkeley, and Austin, and progressives everywhere give remarkably similar justifications for censorship. There is always a new issue – climate change, transgender issues, election denialism, migration, race. Some of this pressure comes from the deep state, the foreign-policy establishment, and the intelligence community. But even there, many actors are highly ideological and intolerant – ironically coming from the political left, which historically defended free speech. One statistic I find particularly alarming: in 2020, fewer than 20 percent of U.S. college students said violence would be justified to stop a campus speaker. Last year, that number had risen to 34 percent. That reflects a collapse of the traditional liberal defense of free speech – the idea that speech is not the same as physical violence. Yes, direct incitement to violence has always been restricted, but that is not what is being censored today. People are being censored simply for holding ideas others dislike. That is civilization-destroying, and deeply frightening. What makes it worse is that this impulse is coming largely from younger generations and from within the left itself. In that college-student survey, support for using violence to stop speech was five to one among liberals compared to conservatives. This is not to excuse conservatives who support censorship – but the trend is clearly concentrated on one side of the political spectrum. And that is alarming, because it risks accelerating a broader unraveling of Western civilization.

Is the core problem ultimately the anti–free speech Zeitgeist?

Even what I call the censorship industrial complex is really a continuation of the intolerance and cancel culture we’ve seen developing over years, even decades. Both Karl Popper, from the liberal left, and Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfurt School argued for intolerance toward what they defined as intolerance, and Marcuse explicitly defended censorship. Those ideas have now entered the mainstream. As the left has radicalized, the free-speech left has become a minority within the broader left coalition. The liberal left increasingly resembles the radical left. In effect, the Popperian and Frankfurt School traditions have converged within today’s left coalition – and in Europe, even within center-right–left governing coalitions – to justify censoring views they regard as troubling or destabilizing to their political agendas.

«As the left has radicalized, the free-speech left has become a minority within the broader left coalition.»

Where do we go from here? What should be done to strengthen free speech?

The uncomfortable reality for many on the left is that the push for censorship has become a left-wing project. It is largely driven by a professional-managerial class of highly globalized people whose interests lie in preserving a particular global system they perceive to be under threat. Ultimately, reversing this trend requires governments and new political leaders willing to say, “We’re not going to do this anymore.” It has been difficult to persuade people on the left to reconsider their position, although there are encouraging signs: opposition to censorship and hate-speech laws is emerging among some Greens in Australia and parts of the British left. Change is not impossible. But it is essential that voices on the left speak out clearly against censorship. And we must call the phenomenon what it is: a continuation of a left-wing project of intolerance that began after the Second World War and intensified in the 1960s.