Zuckerberg’s Admission Proves SCOTUS 1A Ruling Was A Mistake

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted the Biden administration “pushed” for Facebook and Instagram to censor posts that were factually true but politically inconvenient. And his admission proves what many already knew: the Supreme Court’s decision in Missouri v. Murthy was a grave miscarriage of “justice” and an affront to the First Amendment.

Upon taking office, the Biden administration coordinated with social media giants to censor posts that contained factually correct information that was deemed unfavorable. But the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Murthy v. Missouri that Louisiana and Missouri did not have standing to challenge the Biden administration’s collusion with Big Tech companies to suppress Americans’ online speech in violation of the First Amendment.

Zuckerberg admitted such collusion occurred in a recent interview with Joe Rogan, saying the Biden administration — in trying to roll out a vaccine program — “also tried to censor basically anyone who was arguing against it. They pushed us super hard to take down things that were honestly, were true. They basically pushed us and said ‘Anything that says that vaccines might have side effects, you basically need to take down.’”

Zuckerberg also said the administration “would call up our team and like scream at them and curse …” before noting that “all these different agencies and branches of government … started investigating and coming after our company” when Meta refused to fully comply.

“I don’t think that the [government] pushing for social media companies to censor stuff was legal,” Zuckerberg said — an assessment the Fifth Circuit agreed with, having ruled that Executive Branch officials and agencies who pressured social media companies to stifle free speech did so in violation of the First Amendment.

But somehow, Justice Amy Coney Barrett and five other justices couldn’t see what Zuckerberg admitted to, what the Fifth Circuit clearly saw, and what Americans across this country felt: the government colluded to abridge First Amendment rights.

Writing for the majority, Barrett held that “plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a Government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek.”

“Because no plaintiff has carried that burden none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction,” Barrett wrote for the majority, adding that the court lacks the “jurisdiction to reach the merits of the dispute.”

Barrett wrote that it was up to the plaintiffs to show that the social media companies “will likely react in predictable ways” to the government’s “conduct.” In layman’s terms, the plaintiffs had to prove (and according to the majority failed to prove) that social media companies would alter their behavior due to pressure from the government — you know, the exact thing Zuckerberg just admitted happened.

Barrett wrote the plaintiffs would have to prove a reason to fear that the government or social media platforms will censor their posts about Covid-19 or the election. The majority also rejected the Fifth Circuit’s finding that censorship was driven by government pressure, stating that platforms made independent decisions even after government involvement and a direct link was needed to prove standing.

But as Justice Samuel Alito said in his dissent, “If a coercive campaign is carried out with enough sophistication, it may get by. That is not a message this Court should send.”

“For months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech,” Alito continued, adding that the majority “unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment.”

Barrett also criticized the states for not being able to specify whether Facebook’s removal of Covid-19 vaccine related posts in November of 2021 was related to government pressure.

But as Philip Hamburger wrote in these pages, the new standards of traceability is “so onerous that, if the court adheres to it in other cases, almost no one will be able to sue.” (Hamburger explains in great detail why the decision is “probably the worst free speech decision in history.”)

Further, Barrett ruled since Facebook “reported that it had already acted” that implies “that Facebook made its decision independently of the White House.”

A government that calls private companies to scream at employees demanding censorship and then launching investigations into said companies doesn’t scream “independent,” however.

Ultimately, Barrett wrote the plaintiffs failed to prove standing because “without proof of an ongoing pressure campaign, it is entirely speculative that the platforms’ future moderation decisions will be attributable, even in part, to the [government].”

But Zuckerberg’s admission of such a pressure campaign (combined with all the evidence presented to the Court) lays bare the truth: the government colluded with Big Tech to violate Americans’ First Amendment right and the Supreme Court squandered an opportunity to right a wrong.

The truth is, the “proof” was always there — Barrett and the other five justices just chose to turn a blind eye.

Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist. Brianna graduated from Fordham University with a degree in International Political Economy. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2