The Supreme Court hears arguments on whether the government’s pressuring of sites to remove posts about COVID-19, the 2020 election violated the First Amendment. Follow here for the live updates:
Supreme Court Appears Wary of Limiting Biden Admin’s Social Media Contacts in Free Speech Case
By Matthew Vadum
Supreme Court justices seemed skeptical of state arguments on March 18 that the federal government was wrong to communicate with social media platforms about public health issues during the recent pandemic.
At the same time, during oral argument in Murthy v. Missouri, the states argued that the federal government strong-armed social media companies into censoring disfavored views on important public issues such as side effects related to the COVID-19 vaccine and the pandemic lockdowns. Applying this kind of pressure violates the First Amendment, the states argued.
Dr. Vivek Murthy is the U.S. surgeon general. The state of Missouri and other parties sued the federal government for alleged censorship by pressuring social media companies to suppress certain content.
Conservatives and others have complained that social media censors information about transgender issues, COVID-19, and the 2020 election. They were particularly concerned about coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop computer that contained information they say might have harmed President Joe Biden’s election campaign had it been allowed to circulate freely.
Brian Fletcher, principal deputy solicitor general of the United States, acknowledged that the government “may not use coercive threats to suppress speech” but argued it was “entitled to speak for itself by informing, persuading or criticizing private speakers.”
There is a “fundamental distinction between persuasion and coercion,” he said.
Supreme Court Justices Indicate Curbing Censorship Could Cause Issues for Government
By Zachary Stieber
Several U.S. Supreme Court justices on March 18 suggested ruling in favor of individuals who are challenging how government officials pressured social media companies to censor users, leading to a number of repercussions.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by former President Donald Trump, offered the scenario of Louisiana state officials being doxxed, with their private information being posted online. Some people then called for harming the officials, but the posts fell short of being illegal in and of themselves.
The FBI saw the posts and alerted social media outlets. The FBI says the posts are “significantly threatening,” Justice Barrett said in her hypothetical. Should the court block the FBI from doing that?
“I’m a purist on the First Amendment, so my answer would be ‘yeah,’” Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga responded.
Justice Barrett pushed back, asking if the official was aware of how often the FBI engages in that type of communication.
“That’s why I have my backup answer, Your Honor, which is, if you think there needs to be more, the FBI absolutely can identify certain troubling situations like that for the platforms and let the platforms take action,” Mr. Aguinaga said.
Respondents ‘Cautiously Optimistic’
By Jan Jekielek, Savannah Hulsey Pointer
The respondents offered their take following oral arguments, offering an overall positive opinion of how the court might view the case.
Attorneys General Liz Merrill of Louisiana and Andrew Bailey of Missouri both told The Epoch Times they felt positive about the case and how the justices reacted.
“I am cautiously optimistic that we will have a majority of the court that lands where I wholeheartedly believe they should land, and that is in favor of protecting speech,” Ms. Merrill said.
Dr. Aaron Kheriaty and journalist Jim Hoft, both parties listed in the case, spoke about how their personal losses could be viewed by the court, and both said they believed at least some of the Justices seemed to understand their plight.
“Clearly, several of the justices grasp what is at stake, they review the evidentiary record carefully, and I’m optimistic that they will do the right thing,” said Dr. Kheriaty told The Epoch Times.
For his part, Mr. Hoft said, “This has to be where they put a stop to this. The government shouldn’t be doing this, especially when they’re wrong, and pushing their own opinion, silencing dissenting voices. Of course, it’s against the Constitution. It’s a no-brainer.”
What Happened at Today’s Hearing
By Jacob Burg
The Supreme Court today heard arguments today on whether the Biden administration violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media companies to censor posts on COVID-19 and the 2020 election that officials deemed as misinformation.
Deputy Solicitor General for the U.S. Brian Fletcher argued that the White House’s communications with news media and social media companies regarding the content promoted on their platforms does not rise to the level of governmental “coercion,” which would have been prohibited under the Constitution.
Instead, the government was merely using its “bully pulpit” to “persuade” private parties, in this case social media companies, to do what they are “lawfully allowed to do,” he said.
Several justices asked the government questions on what conduct fell inside and outside the scope of “coercion.” Justice Neil Gorsuch cited President Joe Biden’s statement that social media companies were “killing people” with misinformation during the pandemic, and asked whether this was coercive. Mr. Fletcher argued that “this was exhortation, not threat.”
Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga, representing the respondents, argued that the case demonstrates “unrelenting pressure by the government to coerce social media platforms to suppress the speech of millions of Americans.” He contended that the government used its authority to pressure social media platforms to demote pieces of information it wants suppressed, causing them to “routinely cave” in response to government influence.
Mr. Aguiñaga argued that the government had no right telling social media companies what content to carry. It’s only remedy in the event of genuinely false or misleading content, he said, was to counter it with by putting forward “true speech.”
The attorney general took pointed questions from Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson about the extent to which the government can step in to take down certain potentially harmful content. Justice Jackson raised the hypothetical of a “teen challenge that involves teens jumping out of windows at increasing elevations,” asking if it would be a problem if the government tried to suppress the publication of said challenge on social media. Mr. Aguiñaga replied that those facts were different from the present case.
Government’s Rebuttal
By Savannah Hulsey Pointer
In his rebuttal at the end of arguments, Deputy Solicitor General for the U.S. Brian Fletcher asserted that, if the respondent’s case were found to be an accurate one, it would constitute a “massive attack on free speech” and a “coordinated censorship campaign,” as the lower courts termed it.
“I want to be clear: if those things had happened, they would be reprehensible,” Mr. Fletcher admitted.
“It would be a huge problem. But we would think that before validating those sorts of charges against senior government officials and career employees spanning two different administrations, the lower courts would insist on our rigorous analysis of the facts and the law, and with all respect to the lower courts, we don’t think that’s happened here.
“We think the easiest way for this court to resolve this case is on standing, on the for lack of for the injury ground … We’d urge you to make clear that government officials do not violate the First Amendment when they flag false information or malign foreign actors, or answer questions about public health advice when they speak to the public on matters of public concern, the way the President and the Surgeon General did.”
Jackson Voices ‘Concern’
By Jacob Burg
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised the opinion that some say “the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country” when it comes to monitoring the speech that is promoted on online platforms.
“And you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information.
“So can you help me because I’m really worried about that, because you’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government’s perspective.
“And you’re saying that the government can’t interact with the source of those problems?” Ms. Jackson asked.
Respondents’ attorney Mr. Aguiñaga clarified that “our position is not that the government can’t interact with the platforms there.”
“They can and they should in certain circumstances that present such dangerous issues. For society, and especially young people; the way they do that has to be in compliance with the First Amendment,” he said.
In response, Ms. Jackson rephrased the issue at hand.
“The line is, does the government pursuant to the First Amendment have a compelling interest in doing things that result in restricting speech in this way?”
“That test, I think takes into account all of these different circumstances,” she said.
Counter False Speech With True Speech: Louisiana AG
By Austin Alonzo
In response to a question from Brett Kavanaugh, an associate justice of the Supreme Court, Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga said the “government is not helpless” when it comes to countering factually inaccurate speech.
Precedent before the court suggests the government can and should counter false speech with true speech, Mr. Aguiñaga said.
“Censorship has never been the default remedy for perceived First Amendment violation,” Mr. Aguiñaga said.
Does Facebook or the Government Have a Larger Role in Moderation?
By Jacob Burg
Justice Elena Kagan was skeptical about the extent to which the government could have influenced or compelled Facebook to remove certain posts from its platform.
“Until you can show that there’s something about overbearing the platform’s will, which, you know, seems sort of hard to overbear Facebook … how do you say it’s the government rather than Facebook?“
Mr. Aguiñaga responded, “You could say the same thing about how do you know it’s Facebook, not the government. How do you know it’s the government, not Facebook, you can ask it either way.”
Ms. Kagan continued, emphasizing the role Facebook could have in its own content moderation.
“Facebook has a lot of opinions on its own, about various kinds of communications, ethics, {or what is] harmful. I guess, if you’re going to use standard ideas about traceability and addressability. I guess what I’m suggesting is I don’t see a single item in your briefs that would satisfy our normal tests,” she said.
Questions on ‘Disinformation Dozen’
By Savannah Hulsey Pointer
Respondent’s attorney, Benjamin Aguiñaga, was questioned by Sonia Sotomayor about the “disinformation dozen,” which was a group of people the government thought was responsible for the majority of the “health misinformation” on social media.
“Each of our individual plaintiffs specifically identifies the fact that they follow members of the so-called disinformation dozen,” Mr. Aguiñaga said.
“When the government, or when the platforms here in response to the pressure, are taking down contact and accounts related to those individuals called the disinformation dozen, that is necessarily impacting our plaintiff’s right, to engage with their speech.”
Justice Sotomayor went on to say that she had “such a problem” with Mr. Aguiñaga’s brief to the court, saying that it omitted information that “changes the context of some of your claims.”
Mr. Aguiñaga responded, saying “Let me start by apologizing if any aspect of our brief was not as forthcoming as it should have been,” before going on to offer further explanation about the context of the brief.
What About Jumping Out of Windows?
By Austin Alonzo
Ketanji Brown Jackson, an associate justice of the Supreme Court, asked Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga, a hypothetical question about the respondent’s viewpoint on a harmful social media trend.
Justice Jackson said if there was a “teen challenge that involves teens jumping out of windows at increasing elevations” and the government tried to suppress the publication of said challenge on social media, would that be a problem?
Mr. Aguiñaga said that would be a terrible scenario, but it has nothing to do with the matters the court should be considering in the case.
“At least for the government itself, there is no emergency like this,” Mr. Aguiñaga said. “There’s nothing.”
Justice Jackson said if there is, in fact, a public health emergency—as COVID-19 was classified in 2020—can the government, in the eyes of the respondents, be able to call social media platforms and tell them they are “creating a serious public health emergency. We are encouraging you to take it down.”
“I think they absolutely can call and say this is a problem, it’s going rampant on your platforms,” Mr. Aguiñaga said. “But the moment that the government tries to use its ability, as the government and its stature as the government, to pressure them to take it down. That is when you’re interfering with third-party speech rights.”
Barrett Questions if Respondents ‘Articulating Different Standards’
By Jacob Burg
Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Mr. Aguiñaga if he was “articulating different standards, depending on a different legal standard, depending on different factual circumstances.”
“For example, when Justice Kagan gave you the hypothetical of pressure being placed on the New York Times or The Washington Post, not to run a particular Op-Ed, it seemed like you backed off and several significant encouragement wouldn’t be enough there because the person who wrote the Op Ed can go to another news outlet.
“You also made the point that this is just different because social media is such a concentrated industry, which is the point that Justice Gorsuch was asking Mr. Fletcher about.
“So can you clarify, did I misunderstand because it seems to me that as a matter of law, the same legal standard would have to apply across all of these areas?” Ms. Barrett asked.
Mr. Aguiñaga responded that “the court can’t do indirectly what it’s constitutionally prohibited from doing directly,” namely allowing the government to use “coercion” or “encouragement” to direct what content media companies promote on their platforms.
Respondents: Government Wasn’t Asking, It Was Telling
By Austin Alonzo
Elena Kagan, an associate justice of the Supreme Court, asked Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga if the White House calling the Washington Post or another newspaper in the hope of planting a story was equivalent to coercion. She called it a common practice.
“I don’t know how that we would get prospective injunctive relief based on a fleeting, offhand reach out from the White House,” Mr. Aguiñaga said in reply.
Mr. Aguiñaga implied that Ms. Kagan was driving at the suggestion that the government was merely making suggestions akin to anonymous tips to reporters at a newspaper. In his view, it’s not the same issue. The government wasn’t making suggestions or offering news tips; it was telling social media companies what was and wasn’t acceptable speech.
“If the government thinks there’s false speech out there, the remedy for that is true speech,” Mr. Aguiñaga said.
‘Diluting the Concept of Coercion’: Roberts
By Jacob Burg
Justice John Roberts asked the respondents’ attorney Benjamin Aguiñaga if the non-monolithic nature of the government would “dilute the concept of coercion.”
“I suspect when there’s pressure put on one of the platforms or certainly one of the other media outlets, they have people they go to probably in the government to say, ‘hey, they’re trying to get me to do this.’ And that person may disagree with what the government is trying to do with this.
“It’s not monolithic. And that has to dilute the concept of coercion significantly, doesn’t it?” Mr. Roberts asked Mr. Aguiñaga.
The attorney disagreed.
“Whether you call this coercion—if that’s the lever, you attach—you call it encouragement, you call it promotion, [or] you call it inducement. Whatever it is, if the government is attempting to abridge the speech rights of a third party, that has to be unconstitutional, because that falls within the plain text of the First Amendment,” he said.
Mr. Roberts responded with a hypothetical situation where the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) might be trying to coerce a platform in one way while the Army Corps of Engineers is trying to coerce them in a different way, simultaneously.
“I mean, you can’t just sort of pick and choose which part of the government you’re concerned about,” Mr. Roberts said.
‘Government Censorship Has No Place In Our Democracy’: Louisiana AG
By Austin Alonzo
Opening up the respondent’s side of the argument, Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga said the case record reveals “unrelenting pressure by the government to coerce social media platforms to suppress the speech of millions of Americans.”
Mr. Aguiñaga said the previous court ruling characterized the government’s actions during the period under question in the case as “the most massive attack against free speech in American history.”
“The government’s levers of pressure are anathema to the First Amendment,” Mr. Aguiñaga said.
In response to Brian Fletcher, principal deputy solicitor general for the U.S., who argued the government needs a right to a “bully pulpit” to persuade Americans, Mr. Aguiñaga said it is actually “just being a bully”
“The government has no right to persuade platforms to violate Americans’ constitutional rights, and pressuring platforms in backrooms shielded from public view is not using the bully pulpit at all,” Mr. Aguiñaga said.
Fletcher Describes Government Interactions with Media
By Jacob Burg
Mr. Fletcher listed a number of ways in which the government has interactions with the media over its news content and with social media platforms regarding their content.
He mentioned children’s mental health care, antisemitic and Islamophobic speech, and “issues where the White House, the Surgeon General, [and] others might want to make their views known to use the bully pulpit to call on the platforms to do more.”
Mr. Fletcher also described efforts to protect national security, such as the FBI briefing social media platforms on “foreign threats or about terrorist activity happening on those platforms.”
“There’s also a domestic law enforcement side of things, child exploitation, other things like that. The platforms are a vector for those sorts of activities, and the government communicates with them about that,” he added.
Lastly, Mr. Fletcher defended the government communicating with platforms regarding “election integrity issues, false statements about the times places are manners of elections,” such as when voters are deceptively told to vote on the wrong day to suppress turnout.
He also discussed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC “providing advice” to social media companies on “information circulating on [their] platform[s].”
Concentration of Social Media and Coercion
By Austin Alonzo
Neil Gorsuch, an associate justice of the Supreme Court, asked Brian Fletcher, principal deputy solicitor general for the U.S., about how the concentration of social media companies and diversity of the media affects his case.
Specifically, Mr. Gorsuch asked if concentration makes coordination between the government and private entities easier.
“I think that concerns about concentration in the industry go more to the potential effects of coercion, if it happened, that about whether or not coercion happened at all,” Mr. Fletcher said.
‘Persuasion’ Not a First Amendment Violation: Government Lawyer
By Jacob Burg
In response to Justice Clarence Thomas, Mr. Fletcher says the government can “persuade” a private party, like a social media company, to do what a “private party is lawfully allowed to do.”
“I’m saying that when the government persuades a private party not to distribute or promote someone else’s speech, that’s not censorship that’s persuading a private party to do something that they’re lawfully entitled to do and there are lots of contexts where government officials can persuade private parties to do things that the officials couldn’t do,” he said.
For example, Mr. Fletcher said, “after the October 7 attacks in Israel, a number of public officials called on colleges and universities to do more about anti-semitic hate speech on campus.”
“And we think that’s what the government is doing when it’s saying to these platforms, your platforms and your algorithms, and the way that you’re presenting information is causing harm, and we think you should stop … you really don’t see any difference between the government coordinating with the platforms to exclude other speech and persuading the platforms to do this to not engage or permit other speech,” he added.
“What happened is on the persuasion side of the line,” Mr. Fletcher said, not a violation of the First Amendment.
Exhortation Or Coercion?
By Austin Alonzo
Neil Gorsuch, an associate justice of the Supreme Court, asked Brian Fletcher, principal deputy solicitor general for the U.S., about a statement President Joe Biden made about “killing people.”
Mr. Gorsuch asked if such statements, such as one implying social media companies are “responsible for killing people” if they don’t change their policies, are coercive.
“I just want everyone to look in their mirror … and imagine what would happen if this misinformation was going to their opponents,” Mr. Fletcher replied. “I think it’s clear that this was exhortation, not threat.”
Fletcher Argues No Causal Link for Government Censorship
By Jacob Burg
Mr. Fletcher disputed the question of “traceability” in relation to “imminent threat” from the government’s censorship of social media posts.
“We haven’t disputed that [social media posters] suffered that injury,” after their posts were censored, “We’ve disputed the traceability question and then the redress of okay question.”
He specified that “traceability is basically a question of causation,” in other words, that the injury from censorship can be directly “traceable to the government’s actions.”
“I think that the Fifth Circuit and the district court applied too loose a notion of traceability they didn’t try to say this post or any post or any action against Miss Hines was traceable to any action by the government,” he said.
Mr. Fletcher emphasized that plaintiffs “haven’t shown any causal connection” and that “platforms were moderating this content long before the government was talking” to the social media platforms.
Fletcher Criticizes Fifth Circuit Injunction As Vague
By Austin Alonzo
Sonia Sotomayor, associate justice of the Supreme Court, asked Brian Fletcher, principal deputy solicitor general for the US, to explain how an injunction by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is harmful to the government. The Supreme Court has stayed the lower court’s injunction, for now.
Mr. Fletcher responded that the injunction is not currently harming the government, but it can in the future.
For example, the FBI would be limited in its enforcement, investigation, and prosecution of certain threats and harmful speech made on social media by domestic and foreign actors, Mr. Fletcher said.
Mr. Fletcher said for the executive branch, citing the COVID-19 statements at the heart of the case, the president and his administration would be deprived of the “classic bully pulpit” urging actors to behave in different ways on First Amendment grounds if the injunction is upheld.
Moreover, Mr. Fletcher criticized the Fifth Circuit’s injunction as “extremely vague.”
“I think having that sort of vague injunction with these contestable legal terms that have been interpreted very broadly as applied to past conduct hanging over the heads of all of these government officials doing all of these things is a real problem,” Mr. Fletcher said.
Justice Thomas Questions Other Ways to View The Case
By Savannah Hulsey Pointer
Justice Clarence Thomas asked Deputy Solicitor General for the U.S. Brian Fletcher if his argument was “the only way to look at this case.”
Mr. Fletcher responded, saying that there were two ways to view the type of case before the court and their case hinges on it being seen as a “coercion inquiry.”
The attorney said, “You can think of that as an aspect of state action because when private parties are held to act … they become state actors. We think that’s the right way to think about this case.”
Justice Thomas pressed further, asking if similar First Amendment cases were initiated against the government due to actions of private parties, such as social media companies. Mr. Fletcher responded saying he couldn’t think of any.
Government begins argument
By Jacob Burg
Brian Fletcher, Principal Deputy Solicitor General for the U.S., opens arguments for the Biden administration.
Mr. Fletcher said the plaintiffs “have not shown an imminent threat that the government will cause a platform to moderate their posts.”
He said the Fifth Circuit “mistook persuasion for coercion” when filing a previous injunction in the case.
“It held that the FBI communications are inherently coercive because the FBI is a law enforcement agency, a theory that even respondents don’t defend in this court. And it held the White House officials engaged in coercion because they use strong language or referred in a general way to legal reforms in response to the press questions,” he said.
Mr. Fletcher argued that the high court “should reaffirm that government speech crosses the line into coercion only if you’re objectively it conveys a threat of adverse government action,” and that no threats happened in this case.
Doctor Discusses Censorship, Retribution for Opposing COVID ‘Consensus’
By Joseph Lord
At a free speech rally outside the Supreme Court, Dr. Pierre Kory of the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance spoke about his experience facing censorship and retribution from the medical industry for opposing the “consensus” about the virus.
Before COVID, Dr. Kory said, he didn’t know much about the extent of censorship in media—then he experienced it firsthand.
“I’ve been censored in every way, shape, and form,” Dr. Kory said. “I think most of this country has no idea how much censorship is occurring.”
When he started researching COVID-19, Dr. Kory discovered “absurd scientific … policies being propagated that were completely divorced from the science.”
For instance, Dr. Kory said he knew COVID-19 was an aerosol-transmitted disease a year before the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) accepted that and two years before the World Health Organization.
He cited his defense of Ivermectin as an effective treatment for COVID-19, which he called “a huge threat to everything they wanted to accomplish,” particularly suggesting governmental and pharmaceutical actors.
He also cited his opposition to the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, which prevailing narratives said was safe and effective even as information mounted challenging the truthfulness of both claims.
This censorship, instead of taking the form of direct removal of things, he said, instead took the form of attacking his credibility, which he likened to cutting out his tongue.
He had peer-reviewed articles removed from medical journals; he had content and accounts removed from nearly every major social media platform; finally, he eventually lost his job for his opposition to the official narrative on COVID-19.
First Amendment Will Be ‘A Dead Letter’ If SCOTUS Sides With Biden: Expert
By Joseph Lord
The fate of free speech in the United States hinges on the outcome of the two cases being considered by the court today, according to Jeffrey Tucker of the Brownstone Institute.
Speaking to The Epoch Times by phone ahead of the oral arguments today, Mr. Tucker explained that since 2016, but especially since the onset of COVID-19 in 2020, governmental and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have constructed “an extremely well-developed and vast … censorship industrial complex.”
Involved in this industry, Mr. Tucker said, are the government and social media companies themselves, but also NGOs and universities.
“This bumps directly into this question of the American tradition of free speech, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment which says the government cannot interfere with people’s right to to speech,” Mr. Tucker, also a contributor to this publication, said.
Mr. Tucker warned of dire consequences for this core American freedom if the Supreme Court sides with President Joe Biden.
“The founders of the Constitution gave us the First Amendment to make us uniquely free of all countries in the world,” Mr. Tucker said. “Government for many years, as far as the internet is concerned, has been violating that law.
“If we don’t win this case, they’re going to have a complete license to continue to do that. And the First Amendment will become a dead letter.”
What to Know About Today’s Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two landmark freedom of speech cases this morning.
First, SCOTUS will hear arguments at 10 a.m. ET in Murthy v. Missouri which alleges that Biden administration officials engaged in what amounts to government-led censorship-by-proxy by pressuring social media companies to take down posts or suspend accounts over content officials deemed as false or misleading.
Specifically, these allegedly censored posts related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the lab leak theory, the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, the 2020 election, Hunter Biden’s laptop, and other topics that were marked as disinformation or misinformation, according to plaintiffs.
The case is brought by the Republican attorneys general in Missouri and Louisiana, and five social media users. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey previously told The Epoch Times that this amounted to “a vast censorship enterprise” that operates amid “a dystopian scenario, Orwellian in nature.”
Plaintiffs argue that federal officials pulled the strings of social media censorship by applying coercion, threats, and pressure on social media companies to suppress free speech.
Potentially thousands of protestors are expected to descend on the Supreme Court building today to call for SCOTUS to side against the Biden administration in a case that is seen by many as pivotal for the fate of free speech.
The administration, meanwhile, has argued that by simply speaking to social media companies, government officials didn’t violate core constitutional rights.
“Government officials do not violate the First Amendment when they speak in public or in private to inform, to persuade, or to criticize speech by others,” the U.S. government wrote in a brief.
Opponents of this position argue that the government shouldn’t be involved with what’s allowed on social media at all, and say that permitting them to continue “jawboning” tech platforms into removing content poses significant risks to the future of free speech in the U.S. as social media has increasingly become a key political forum.
A separate case today, National Rifle Association (NRA) v. New York, also concerns free speech. The NRA alleges that a New York official violated the First Amendment by encouraging businesses to disassociate with the gun rights body in the wake of a mass shooting.
Former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services Maria Vullo encouraged financial institutions to sever ties with the NRA, offering them rewards and regulatory lenience in exchange for doing so, after the 2018 Parkland, Florida shooting.
Even the American Civil Liberties Union, a left-leaning civil liberties organization, has condemned Ms. Vullo’s actions.
Ms. Vullo’s lawyers said in a response to NRA allegations that “the ability to opine on important questions of public policy is vital to the work of many government officials.” They added that Vullo “did not violate the First Amendment by expressing her views regarding a national tragedy.”
Supreme Court to Hear Arguments in Biden Admin’s Censorship of Social Media Posts
By Tom Ozimek
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two landmark freedom of speech cases Monday morning.
First, SCOTUS will hear arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, which alleges that Biden administration officials engaged in what amounts to government-led censorship-by-proxy by pressuring social media companies to take down posts or suspend accounts over content officials deemed as false or misleading.
Specifically, these allegedly censored posts related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the lab leak theory, the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, the 2020 election, Hunter Biden’s laptop, and other topics that were marked as disinformation or misinformation, according to plaintiffs.
The case is brought by the Republican attorneys general in Missouri and Louisiana, and five social media users. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey previously told The Epoch Times that this amounted to “a vast censorship enterprise” that operates amid “a dystopian scenario, Orwellian in nature.”
Plaintiffs argue that federal officials pulled the strings of social media censorship by applying coercion, threats, and pressure on social media companies to suppress free speech.
Potentially thousands of protestors are expected to descend on the Supreme Court building today to call for SCOTUS to side against the Biden administration in a case that is seen by many as pivotal for the fate of free speech.
The administration, meanwhile, has argued that by simply speaking to social media companies, government officials didn’t violate core constitutional rights.
“Government officials do not violate the First Amendment when they speak in public or in private to inform, to persuade, or to criticize speech by others,” the U.S. government wrote in a brief.
Opponents of this position argue that the government shouldn’t be involved with what’s allowed on social media at all, and say that permitting them to continue “jawboning” tech platforms into removing content poses significant risks to the future of free speech in the U.S. as social media has increasingly become a key political forum.
A separate case today, National Rifle Association (NRA) v. New York, also concerns free speech. The NRA alleges that a New York official violated the First Amendment by encouraging businesses to disassociate with the gun rights body in the wake of a mass shooting.
Former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services Maria Vullo encouraged financial institutions to sever ties with the NRA, offering them rewards and regulatory lenience in exchange for doing so, after the 2018 Parkland, Florida shooting.
Even the American Civil Liberties Union, a left-leaning civil liberties organization, has condemned Ms. Vullo’s actions.
Ms. Vullo’s lawyers said in a response to NRA allegations that “the ability to opine on important questions of public policy is vital to the work of many government officials.” They added that Vullo “did not violate the First Amendment by expressing her views regarding a national tragedy.”
From The Epoch Times
