The case is Marcy v. State of Missouri A lawsuit filed by a number of states, including Louisiana, in federal court in Monroe, Louisiana. The basis for the lawsuit includes states and individuals whose posts about the coronavirus were censored suing federal officials for violating their free speech rights. A lower court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that certain government officials pressured social media platforms to censor and suppress posts.
The legal issue is freedom of speech and how these giant social media sites “moderate” or actually censor the content of speech, and whether through their own actions or under pressure from the federal government. As a result of this, or both, these tech giants are suppressing certain speech. This is done virtually all the time. conservative speech.
These “communications” reflect active coordination between Facebook and U.S. government officials, including senior White House officials. In one example, Pres. Biden claims social media sites and “coronavirus misinformation” are leading to “killing people,” staff at Mehta (a Facebook spinoff company) emailed to U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy “It's not great to be accused of killing someone,” he said. But Mehta was committed to finding “ways to de-escalate and work collaboratively.”
Other such “communications” (In other words, threats) include Rob Flaherty, former White House director of digital strategy, and a coronavirus advisor who “flagged social media employees for deletion and reprimanded them if they didn't follow orders.” Including Andy Slavitt. (wall street journal, 3-18-24). Flaherty also blamed Facebook for the violence on January 6, 2021, saying it would be responsible for the deaths caused by COVID-19 unless it tightened its censorship.
oh.
WSJ Additionally, “officials have threatened to publicly threaten others,” including former White House press secretary Jen Psaki, who said platforms could face “legal consequences” if they do not censor vaccine misinformation. and reinforced these personal accusations.” Echoing Psaki's threat, multiple Biden officials have strongly hinted that the Justice Department could file an antitrust lawsuit against the platforms and remove Section 230 liability protections.
This incestuous relationship between the federal government and Facebook/Big Tech creates a toxic alliance between the government and the giant social media sites that is necessary for the public to make informed decisions. important information is suppressed. It is irrefutable censorship of free speech.
The Biden administration maintains that these threats are merely “jawbones” — government speech intended to persuade and inform, protected by the First Amendment. That's hilarious. The U.S. 5th Circuit disagreed, concluding that Biden officials “crossed the line by using the threat of legal action, rather than merely aiming to persuade.” (WSJibid).
The greatest virtue of free speech is that ideas of all kinds are thrown into the turbulent waters of the “marketplace of ideas,” where the best ideas prevail and guide the nation to wise policy outcomes on difficult national problems. . That obviously doesn't happen when certain speech is censored and suppressed.
Well, after the arguments before the Supreme Court and questions from several justices, I am concerned. Several justices held a view diametrically opposed to the view of free speech expressed by the Founding Fathers and reflected in the Constitution, that the First Amendment gives the government the power to “curb” or censor free speech. This view was reflected in the question.
This unconstitutional view was most clearly expressed in Justice Jackson's questioning, but so-called conservative justices, including Kavanaugh and Roberts, also appeared to lean toward supporting government censorship of free speech. Justice Jackson expressed concern that “the First Amendment would seriously impede government at its most critical moment.'' She seems to have forgotten in her constitutional law class that “interfering” with the federal government, including the government of George III, is precisely why free speech is important. beginning Amendments to the Bill of Rights.
One of our most important constitutional principles is that the government cannot force private entities to do anything it prohibits it from doing on its own. Congress could not directly pass laws to suppress speech by Americans about the coronavirus. This law would be immediately repealed as a violation of the First Amendment. Well, the government can't force Facebook and other big social media platforms to suppress speech either. I hope the Supreme Court will forcefully reaffirm that principle in this case.
