Free Speech at Stake: The Importance of SCOTUS Dismissing Government Censorship Claims in Murthy v. Missouri

On a day redolent with ‌the ‌spirit of freedom, July 4,⁤ 2023, Federal Judge Terry Doughty in Louisiana made headlines with a momentous ‍decision in what​ was initially known as Missouri v. Biden.‌ This landmark case, brought forth by two vigilant state attorneys general—one of whom, Eric Schmitt, now ​graces the U.S. Senate—echoed the resounding calls for justice that ​marked the revered civil rights‌ rulings of the past.‌ However, this‍ time, the ⁤tables turned: a conservative judge allied with local officials in challenging a Democratic-led federal administration.

The ripple effects of this case have yet to subside ⁣as it ascends to ‌the U.S. Supreme ​Court, poised to set legal ‌precedents in the fraught domain of censorship⁤ laws. This battle‍ is not just legal; it is symbolic, testing the very foundations of ‌our free speech doctrine.

Finding⁤ a Free Speech Majority

Will the ‌plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri succeed in assembling a coalition for free speech? Expectations for a predictable ⁢partisan split may be upended. Surprisingly, Justices like ⁤Roberts and Kavanaugh, who ⁢voted with the majority in Dobbs, have ⁣historically tipped the scales in favor of institutional authority over individual liberties.

Kavanaugh’s stance​ crystallized in the 2019 case⁤ Manhattan Community Access Corporation ​v. Halleck. He penned ​for ​the majority an opinion that eschewed the⁤ notion of private entities, serving as conduits for ⁣public⁢ discourse, being treated as state actors. Yet the dissent, spearheaded by Justice Sotomayor, ​pointed out the complex nature⁤ of speech rights when entangled with private infrastructure.

“Numerous private entities in America obtain government licenses, government contracts, or government-granted monopolies. If those facts sufficed to transform a private entity into a state actor, a large ‍swath of private entities ​in America would suddenly be turned into state actors and be subject to‌ a variety of constitutional constraints ‍on their activities. As ‌this Court’s many state-action⁤ cases amply demonstrate, that is not the law.”

Murthy signals a pressing dilemma: Do social media companies, akin to the nonprofit in Halleck, have‌ the prerogative to dictate content⁣ on their​ platforms without qualifying as state actors? The ideological leanings of Justices‍ Roberts ⁢and Kavanaugh suggest ‍they might side with‍ tech giants and federal standpoints.

However, there’s ​a glimmer of hope for⁣ free speech advocates. Justices Alito and Gorsuch, along ‍with Thomas, have indicated a readiness to advocate for a more broad interpretation​ of speech rights. This unusual assemblage of Justices could yield an unprecedented majority.

The Editorial Control Argument

One must challenge the​ notion that tech companies are merely exercising editorial discretion by‍ aligning with government-prescribed standards to moderate content. Historical trends reflect minimal editorial intervention by ‌these platforms, which underpins the censorship debate. The primary‌ concern lies with the ‌suppression of dissenting voices that challenge ⁢government narratives, under the guise of curbing misinformation.

The core of the⁢ Murthy argument ⁤shouldn’t skirt around⁣ nebulous dangers‌ such ⁤as ​”bad stuff,” but rather emphasize the ramifications of silencing legitimate⁢ discourse, as⁣ seen in contested subjects⁣ ranging from pandemic policies to controversial political exposes.

The Town Square

In the modern age, the internet, particularly social media, serves as ‍our global town square—a stage for vital public conversation. Curtailing speech in this digital space poses significant threats ⁢to an informed electorate and the democratic ⁤process at large.

The suppression of stories like the Hunter Biden laptop case exemplifies the perilous impact that controlled narratives have on public opinion ⁤and electoral outcomes.⁢ Such censorship erodes the essential discourse that shapes⁣ informed ⁣decisions on critical⁣ societal issues.

Justices ⁢poised to ⁢adjudicate the ⁢ Murthy case have a chance to fortify the founding liberal ⁤values that encourage uninhibited debate in our digital ⁢public forum. Recognizing the internet as the new town square could be a⁤ step towards preserving free speech in the age of information.