Authoritarianism does not begin with prisons or torture chambers. It begins with suspicion – when loyalty is measured not by what you believe but by whom you are willing to expose. In East germany, the Stasi turned neighbors into watchmen. In Chile under Pinochet, a whisper in a café could summon the police. In Iraq under Saddam,cousins betrayed cousins,sons betrayed fathers.And in Syria, where I grew up, even the walls were said to have ears. Everywhere, the pattern was the same: a society taught to police itself.
That is why what followed the killing of Charlie Kirk unsettled me almost as much as the killing itself. Within hours, social media filled with denunciations. A website called “Charlie’s Murderers” appeared overnight, cataloging associates of the accused as if complicity were contagious. People justified their callouts as civic duty. They tagged employers, immigration authorities, and universities not only to “expose” others, but also to prove their own loyalty to the nation.
It was not the frist time. After October 7, for example, social media became a battlefield of callouts. Screenshots of old posts circulated, and employers were flooded with demands to fire staff for their statements on Palestine and Israel.
The ferocity after Kirk’s death felt different.Although Kirk was an inflammatory figure at the center of America’s increasingly volatile political divide, watching someone lose their life in such a tragic and public way was deeply disturbing. When violence becomes an acceptable response to speech, we cross a risky line – one that should concern all of us, nonetheless of our place on the political spectrum. But the rush to police speech concerning Kirk’s leg
Surveillance as Loyalty
Table of Contents
In Syria, the surveillance state – 11 intelligence branches strong – was built on ordinary people. To be loyal was to be the eyes and ears of the regime. Anyone could be an informant, even your sibling. Families warned their children not to repeat what they heard at home. The walls, we were told, really did have ears.
To preserve the illusion of free speech, the syrian government allowed television comedies to satirize surveillance, but only to a point.The line was always clear: criticize the incompetence of the security forces, but never question the necessity of their existence.
This dynamic – the pretense of freedom alongside pervasive monitoring – is now being replicated in the United States, albeit in a more insidious and technologically advanced form. the argument,increasingly common among right-wing commentators,is that robust surveillance is not a threat to liberty,but rather a demonstration of patriotism. To resist surveillance is to harbor something to hide, to be disloyal to the nation.
Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, articulated this view explicitly during a recent appearance on Fox News. “If you love this country,” kirk declared, “you should want the government to have every tool available to protect you.” He framed surveillance not as a potential infringement on civil liberties, but as a necessary component of national security. “I want them listening,” he said. “I want them watching.”
This rhetoric is particularly alarming given the growing trend of surveillance targeting political dissent. As the Intercept has reported,the Department of Homeland Security is actively monitoring social media for “extremist” content,often conflating legitimate political expression with violent extremism. this surveillance is not limited to overt threats; it extends to individuals and groups critical of the government’s policies.
The parallels between Syria and the United States are unsettling. in both cases, the justification for surveillance is framed as a defense of the existing order. In Syria, it was the preservation of the regime; in the United States, it is indeed the protection of national security. But in both cases, the true purpose of surveillance is to suppress dissent and maintain power.
The danger lies in the normalization of this mindset. When surveillance is presented as an act of loyalty, it becomes increasingly difficult to challenge its expansion. Individuals may self-censor, fearing that their words or actions will be misinterpreted or used against them. The result is a chilling effect on free speech and a gradual erosion of democratic norms.
The Intercept is committed to exposing the dangers of unchecked surveillance and defending the right to privacy. Will you take the next step to support our self-reliant journalism by becoming a member of the intercept?
Join Our Newsletter
Original reporting.Fearless journalism. Delivered to you.
By signing up, I agree to receive emails from The Intercept and to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
The Erosion of Free Speech: parallels between Syria and the United States
The United States is demonstrably different from Syria. Facing social media backlash or job loss pales in comparison to the fate of dissidents who disappear into Syrian prisons.Though, the underlying logic driving both environments – the encouragement of informing as a patriotic duty – is deeply concerning. This logic, once embraced, can pave the way for authoritarianism, not through overnight change, but through the insidious normalization of suspicion, the instinct to report, and the chilling effect on free expression. A society that turns against itself is ripe for manipulation and control.
The Dangerous Logic of Informing
The core issue isn’t simply the act of reporting wrongdoing. Its the framing of that act as inherently virtuous,as a demonstration of loyalty to the state or a particular ideology. This tactic has been historically employed by authoritarian regimes to suppress dissent and maintain control.
In Syria, under the Assad regime, informing on neighbors, colleagues, or even family members became a survival mechanism, and a tool of the state. Human Rights Watch reports detail how the Syrian government systematically used a network of informants to monitor and suppress opposition,leading to widespread fear and a breakdown of social trust.
While the consequences in the U.S. are vastly different, the principle is the same. When individuals are encouraged to police the speech and actions of others, a climate of fear and self-censorship emerges. This isn’t about protecting society from genuine threats; it’s about stifling critical thought and dissent.
The normalization of informing creates a chilling effect on free speech. When people fear retribution – whether it be social ostracism, professional consequences, or, in more extreme cases, imprisonment – for expressing unpopular opinions, they are less likely to speak out. This silence isn’t golden; it’s the breeding ground for authoritarianism.
As political scientist Hannah Arendt argued in The Origins of Totalitarianism, the erosion of the public sphere and the suppression of dissenting voices are key precursors to totalitarian rule. Arendt’s work highlights how the destruction of independent thought and the creation of a homogenous worldview are essential for maintaining authoritarian control.
The current trend of “cancel culture” and the pressure to conform to specific ideological viewpoints, while not equivalent to the brutality of the Syrian regime, represent a worrying trend towards self-censorship and the suppression of dissenting opinions. The Atlantic has published extensive coverage on the complexities of cancel culture and its impact on free expression.
The Importance of Robust Debate
A healthy democracy requires robust debate, even – and especially – when that debate is uncomfortable or challenging.The ability to freely express dissenting opinions is not merely a right; it’s a necessity for holding power accountable and ensuring a just and equitable society.
Suppressing speech, even with good intentions, ultimately undermines the foundations of a free society. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. famously wrote in Schenck v. United States (1919), “the best test of truth is the power of thought struggling with other thoughts.” the full text of the ruling is available through Cornell Law School.
Key Takeaways:
* The principle of informing as patriotism is dangerous: It mirrors tactics used by authoritarian regimes to suppress dissent.
* Self-censorship is a threat to democracy: Fear of retribution stifles critical thought and open debate.
* Robust debate is essential: A healthy society requires the free exchange of ideas, even those that are unpopular.
* Historical parallels are cautionary: Understanding how authoritarianism takes root elsewhere can help us safeguard our own freedoms.
the United States is not syria, but the seeds of authoritarianism can take root anywhere when the principles of free speech and open debate are compromised.Protecting these principles requires vigilance, courage, and a commitment to defending the rights of all individuals to express their opinions, even those we disagree with. The future of american democracy may depend on it.