Petition to restore media integrity and restore free speech

Liberty
1

Summary of petition

Summary of the Petition to Restore Media Integrity and Protect Free Speech

This petition calls on Congress to take immediate action to restore fairness,
transparency, and accountability in the media. It argues that taxpayer dollars have been used to fund biased news, propaganda, and censorship programs that manipulate public opinion and silence dissent. To address this, the petition demands the following legislative actions:

Reinstate the Smith-Mundt Act (1948) – Reverse the 2012 modernization that legalized government propaganda targeting U.S. citizens.

Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine – Require media outlets to provide balanced coverage of political issues.

Restore Bipartisan Oversight of U.S. Media Governance (BBG) – Reverse the 2017 shift that allowed a single presidential appointee to control government media.

Pass the Media Ownership Accountability Act – Break up corporate media monopolies to restore independent journalism.

Ban Federal Funding of Fact-Checkers and Censorship Programs – Prohibit government coercion of social media platforms and private companies to suppress speech.

Investigate and Defund Government-Controlled News Outlets – Audit and cut taxpayer funding for media engaged in political propaganda.

The petition highlights the damage caused by media corruption, including:

Psychological harm – Fear-mongering and propaganda have led to anxiety, depression, and widespread paranoia.

Division and hatred – Media narratives have fueled racial conflict and societal division.

Warped reality – Misinformation has created mass hysteria and political fear.

Erosion of national unity – Constant division tactics have fractured the country and undermined shared values.

The petition concludes by demanding that Congress act to restore media integrity and protect free speech, warning that lawmakers who fail to act will be held accountable in future elections.

Why is this important?

The media is no longer working for the people. It’s been weaponized by the government against the American people. Spreading biased news, political propaganda and misinformation. stoking division while focusing on harmful identity politics and pushing false narratives.

The people deserve news they can trust not politicized rhetoric and propaganda.
And it’s imperative that people have the right to free speech.

We must not be manipulated by the government. And the government should not be allowed to use psychological War for upon the American people.

This petition calls for the restoration of safeguards that once protected the American people from government propaganda and biased news.

if this is important to you as it is to all of us please sign this petition to protect the American people from politicized biased news, blatant lies and the protection of Free speech

Petition
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pK-fgse4Li33a4pWx0r4ElO232Pc-FhKccaCKEK0myQ/edit?usp=drivesdk

1 Like
2

The public is misinformed. It does not allow the Government to use propaganda against the Citizen, legally. What they do behind closed doors is a different question.

“Facts About Smith-Mundt Modernization – USAGM”

The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act was part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. The U.S. government produces and distributes programming in both TV and Radio formats, using six entities, including Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty to reach foreign audiences. The function of the old law was to restrict Americans’ access to that programming. Content produced by Voice of America, for example, was exempt from FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests. The only organization governed by the law and amendment is the U.S. Agency for Global Media, the arm of the State Department that operates Voice of America and other foreign-oriented broadcast services. Under the amendment, it is required to make its programming available to Americans “upon request" – in other words, to those who ask for it.

3

:heart: I appreciate your perspective, but I respectfully disagree. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act may not explicitly allow government propaganda against citizens, but it removed previous safeguards that prohibited it. Before 2012, the law ensured that government-funded media, such as Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, could not be broadcast domestically to influence public opinion. The modernization removed these restrictions, making government-produced content legally accessible within the U.S.

While the law states that this content is available ‘upon request,’ the reality is that government agencies and contractors have actively worked with media platforms to shape narratives, suppress dissenting voices, and promote specific political agendas. The concern is not just about what is legal on paper, but how these changes have been exploited in practice.

This is why restoring these safeguards is crucial—to prevent the government from using taxpayer-funded media to influence domestic discourse and ensure that Americans receive news that is truly independent and free from government manipulation."*

1 Like
4

So you have proof and the U.S. Agency for Global Media is incorrect? Where is you proof?

So you say we have a law and you say they are breaking the law. Then prosecute them. No need to change the law.

5

It’s not about whether the U.S. Agency for Global Media is incorrect—it’s about how the changes to the law opened the door for government influence over domestic media. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act removed restrictions that previously prevented government-funded media from being distributed within the U.S. While the law does not explicitly authorize propaganda, it also does not contain meaningful safeguards against it.

As for proof, we’ve seen multiple instances where government agencies and officials have coordinated with media outlets and social media platforms to control narratives, suppress dissent, and promote specific political messaging. The Twitter Files, for example, revealed direct communication between government officials and tech companies to moderate content in ways that benefited certain political interests. The concern is not just about breaking the law—it’s about how existing loopholes and vague legal language allow these actions to take place without clear accountability.

Also there is evidence that USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development) and certain NGOs have funded media outlets, including some that influence political narratives. Reports and investigations have shown that USAID has provided grants to media organizations under the guise of promoting democracy and independent journalism. However, these funds have sometimes been directed toward outlets that push specific narratives aligned with U.S. government interests.

For example:

USAID has funded media programs and training initiatives that influence how stories are reported, particularly in foreign countries.

NGOs receiving government grants have partnered with major media outlets, sometimes shaping editorial directions.

Leaked documents and reports have linked USAID funding to media organizations, raising concerns about bias and government influence in reporting.

Strengthening the law ensures that government influence over domestic media is explicitly prohibited, rather than relying on after-the-fact enforcement that rarely happens. It’s about preventing the problem, not just reacting to it after the damage is done.

6

Except that’s not how the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ functioned.