Original Article By Frank Bergman
Former President Barack Hussein Obama has issued a chilling demand for the censorship of dissenting voices by urging governments around the world to crack down on the “dangerous” free speech rights of “polarizing voices.”
Obama is once again stepping into the political spotlight, positioning himself as the Democratic Party’s unofficial spokesperson ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
In preparation for the looming midterms, Obama is now openly calling for new government controls over journalism and social media to eliminate any “diversity of facts.”
In a recent interview with left-wing historian Heather Cox Richardson, whose Substack he has personally endorsed, Obama appeared to endorse censorship under the guise of “reaffirming facts.”
“We’re going to have to start experimenting with new forms of journalism,” Obama said, “with government regulatory constraints.”
“Part of what we’re going to have to do is to start experimenting with new forms of journalism and how we use social media in ways that reaffirm facts and separate facts from opinion.
“We want diversity of opinion,” he claimed.
“We don’t want diversity of facts.
“That, I think, is one of the big tasks of social media.
“By the way, it will require some government regulatory constraints…”
Obama insisted such “regulatory constraints” could still be applied “in a way that’s consistent” with the First Amendment, even as he called for platforms to suppress voices deemed too “hateful” or “dangerous.”
“There is a difference between letting all voices be heard versus a business model that elevates the most hateful voices or the most polarizing voices or the most dangerous, in the sense of inciting violence, voices,” Obama said.
“That I think is going to be a big challenge for all of us to undertake.”
WATCH:
Obama’s Push for Speech Regulation Raises Alarming Questions
Critics say Obama’s remarks confirm what many Americans have long suspected: that the Democrat establishment is actively laying the groundwork for a government-managed information system, one that polices which opinions are allowed to circulate online.
The vague phrasing, such as “hateful,” “polarizing,” and “dangerous,” has sparked particular concern, as such terms can easily be manipulated to silence dissent.
As one cyber expert warned, Obama’s comments are not about safety, but control.
“F*ck this guy,” said Mike Benz, a former Trump administration official and founder of the Foundation for Freedom Online.
“His whole apparatus is set up to end the First Amendment.
“He’s coordinating with foreign governments to end free speech in America.
“And he spied and lied and did every dirty trick in the book along the way.”
Benz has repeatedly documented how the U.S. government, under Democrat administrations, has funded and coordinated with global “disinformation” networks to pressure social media platforms into censoring political speech.
The Global Censorship Blueprint
Obama’s comments come as Western governments push sweeping digital regulations to control what can be said online, from the EU’s Digital Services Act to Canada’s proposed Online Harms Act.
In the United Kingdom, police now make more than 30 arrests a day for “offensive” online messages.
Members of the general public are charged for wrongthink under vaguely worded communications laws.
Many of those arrests target citizens who criticize the socialist government policies, particularly around mass immigration, policies that have led to rampant crime and even grooming scandals across British towns.
These same speech-policing mechanisms are now being used to justify digital ID systems, which will be mandatory for employment, travel, and online access.
It’s a familiar pattern:
1: Create or worsen a national crisis.
2: Label dissenting voices as “dangerous” or “misinformation.”
3: Use that fear to justify new surveillance and control mechanisms.
Obama’s call for “government regulatory constraints” on information fits squarely within that agenda.
A Warning from History
What Obama is proposing, critics say, is nothing short of state-regulated speech, a digital Ministry of Truth.
The idea of a government deciding what constitutes “fact,” which voices are “safe,” and which ones are “polarizing” is exactly what totalitarian regimes have done throughout history to suppress opposition.
And after what Americans witnessed during the pandemic, with the censorship-industrial complex silencing doctors, journalists, and even sitting members of Congress, few believe these “constraints” would stop with so-called “hate speech.”
The danger lies in who decides what counts as “hate,” “misinformation,” or “fact.”
The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher
Obama’s comments make clear that Democrats are preparing to reassert control over the flow of information before the next election, and to do so under the language of “democracy” and “safety.”
But as history shows, government regulation of speech never ends with the protection of democracy.
It ends with its destruction.
If Democrats regain full control in Washington, critics warn the First Amendment itself may not survive the next wave of “experiments” Obama is calling for.
Be the first to comment