Kenin Spivack, RealClearPolitics
The Supreme Court had multiple opportunities to end social media censorship of conservatives during its last term. It chose a different path. Now Democrats can double down on the massive censorship effort of the Biden-Harris Administration.
It’s clear that they intend to do so.
Related: Coalition of 16 states sues Biden administration to block amnesty plan
The First Amendment to the Constitution, a cornerstone of American democracy, prohibits Congress from making any law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” This prohibition is Administrative measures and state governmentUntil recently, there was bipartisan agreement that freedom of speech was essential to American freedom. Today, Third Americans believe that the right to free speech has gone too far.
When Donald Trump was elected president, Democrats in Congress threatened to file antitrust lawsuits against social media platforms and roll back Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act’s defamation protections if they failed to stifle conservative speech. When Joe Biden took office, the federal government Institutionalized Censorship companies pressure and collaborate with social media platforms to censor, suppress, and demonetize voices they dislike.
The New York Times admit The left has long sought to restrict “free speech.” Former President Barack Obama said Speaking at a Stanford University conference, Vice President Kamala Harris called for imposing government controls to thwart so-called “disinformation.” Announced The White House has launched a task force to block disinformation about women’s issues. Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz told MSNBC that “freedom of speech is not guaranteed when it comes to disinformation or hate speech.” In fact, both are generally Protected By the First Amendment. Platform It sees controlling disinformation as a priority.
In contrast, in July, Republicans Platform “We will prohibit the federal government from conspiring with anyone to censor lawful speech, defund agencies that engage in censorship, and hold accountable any officials who engage in unlawful censorship. We will protect free speech online.”
Related: Trump highlights violent crimes committed by foreigners at border event
in Murthy v. MissouriHealthcare Worker, Missouri, Louisiana Sued To thwart the Biden-Harris censorship regime, officials worked with third parties, including Stanford University, nonprofits and social media companies, and through those third parties, they deliberately sought to circumvent prohibitions on government interference with free speech. After reviewing an extensive investigation, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty testified that Found The Biden-Harris administration has launched a “broad pressure campaign aimed at forcing social media companies to suppress voices, views and content adverse to the government,” and issued the injunction to block it. Unanimous Panel A judge on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the ruling but adjusted the injunction to remove ambiguities and exempt some institutions.
Florida and Texas subsequently passed laws making it harder for social media platforms to ban political speech. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Florida law, finding that it unfairly restricted editorial discretion, while the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Texas law, finding that content moderation activities are not speech.
The Supreme Court ruled on both cases last term.
in Murthy v. Missouri, In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court overturned the Fifth Circuit ruling, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because they had failed to show that their speech was specifically censored by specific actions of government officials. Found The platform has its own incentives to censor content, “often” exercises its own judgment, and would likely have censored the same content even in the absence of government coercion or encouragement.
RELATED: No, the border crisis isn’t over for Biden and Harris
in Moody v. NetChoice LLC, The court unanimously decided that the Florida and Texas appeals courts had not properly analyzed the First Amendment, and remanded the case for reconsideration, cautioning the Fifth Circuit that content moderation typically involves editorial decisions protected by the First Amendment.
It is troubling that in these decisions the Court has used the left’s preferred euphemism “content moderation” rather than “censorship” or “repression.” And while the Court is rightly wary of state interference with the editorial choices made by social media platforms, it has not expressed the same concerns about the federal government. Murthy It was contradictory Net Choiceprecedents, and evidentiary records.
in Peterson v. City of Greenville (1963), the Court ruled that when a government is deeply involved in the actions of private citizens, it cannot claim that those actions occurred as a result of the private citizens’ choices, even if the private citizens acted independently. Norwood v. Harrison (1973), Chief Justice Warren Burger explained that the government “cannot induce, encourage, or facilitate private persons to do anything the Constitution prohibits.” Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. (1974) and Bloom v. Jarecki (1982) laid out guidelines for when the government could be held liable by coercing or “significantly encouraging” private behavior. Biden v. Knight, Columbia University First Amendment Institute.(2021), Justice Clarence Thomas summarized: “The government cannot accomplish by threat of adverse government action what the Constitution forbids it from doing directly.”
Since the court’s decision, Murthy, The Biden-Harris administration is stepping up censorship. Report The Justice Department is repeating the same malign foreign influence justification it used in defending the United States. Murthy Last week, the Justice Department again authorized working with social media platforms to curb objectionable posts. See also During Elon Musk’s interview with Donald Trump on X, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre quoted former Press Secretary Jen Psaki, arguing that social media companies have a “responsibility” to curb disinformation and misinformation.
While the Supreme Court’s decision leaves the opportunity for future plaintiffs to more carefully link enforcement actions to specific instances of censorship, unless Republicans win in November, government-encouraged censorship of conservatives is only likely to get worse.
Kenin M. Spivak is the founder and chairman of SMI Group LLC, an international consulting and investment bank. She is the author of fiction and non-fiction books and a frequent speaker and contributor to The American Mind, National Review, the National Association of Scholars, television, radio, podcasts, and other media.
Distributed with permission From RealClearWire.
