The good news is that there will soon be a reckoning with the Biden administration’s policy of ordering businesses to censor content they don’t like. The Louisiana ban on the administration censoring social opponents through private companies will be upheld by the Supreme Court. The bad news is that because the First Amendment is only a theory, Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett decided to sign on allowing the Biden administration to continue doing it for another year. Read the Alito dissent on the majority’s decision to halt censorship of the Biden administration. ( Alito was accompanied by Gorsuch and Thomas. ) Today, however, a majority of the Court suspends the effect of that injunction until the court has finished reviewing this case, which might not happen until later in the spring of second year, without conducting an exhaustive record review and without providing any justification. Personal speech censorship by the government is opposed to our democratic system of government, so today’s decision is extremely unsettling.
The COVID-19 lab leak theory, pandemic lockdowns, vaccine side effects, election fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story are just a few of the contentious topics on which common social media companies are accused of having blocked their use of their platforms or downgraded their posts. This case first came to light when two States, Missouri and Louisiana, as well as several private parties, filed lawsuits.
The plaintiffs claimed that Federal Government officials” were the ones pulling the strings ,” i.e., that they” coerced, threatened, and pressured [ the] social media platforms to censor them.”
The injunction, as it currently stands, forbids the covered officials from doing two things in order to stop this” campaign.” First of all, they might not” coerce” social media platforms into making” content-moderation decisions.” Second, they might not” meaningfully contest” the” content-moderation” efforts of” social media platforms.” The government requested that we postpone the implementation of this injunction pending certiorari because it was dissatisfied with these limitations.
The majority upholds the injunction, allowing the defendants to continue committing the kinds of First Amendment violations that the lower courts identified despite the Government’s glaring failure to prove a threat of catastrophic harm. In spite of the lower courts’ extensive findings of fact, the majority takes this action.
I worry that some people will view what the Court has done at this point in our nation’s history as giving the government permission to use sleazy tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that is exceedingly dominating the dissemination of news. That is extremely shocking. Alito left out the fact that the Biden administration will be able to keep censoring opposing viewpoints into 2024 as the political campaign gets under way. While Alito contends that censoring political dissent will result in” irreparable harm ,” the Biden administration asserted that being unable to do so during a presidential campaign would” cause”” harm. Amy Coney Barrett, Roberts, and Kavanaugh all supported the Biden administration. That doesn’t look good for the real situation, but we’ll see. The First Amendment properly ceases to exist online if the Biden administration prevails in this case. Should a president have the authority to censor his or her social rivals? Don’t budge.
The good news is, the Biden administration will be held accountable for its policy of telling businesses to censor anything they don’t want. The Supreme Court will review the Louisiana ban against the administration censoring its political opponents through private companies. The bad news is Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett have decided to sign off on letting the Biden Administration continue doing it for another one year because the First Amendment only exists as a theory. Read the Alito dissent in the majority’s decision to stay an order blocking the Biden Administration’s censorship. Thomas and Gorsuch joined Alito. Today, however, the majority of the Court, with no explanation and without a full review, suspended the effect of the injunction, until the Court completed its review of this matter, which may not happen until late spring next year. The censorship by the government of private speech is incompatible with our democratic form of governance, and today’s decision was highly disturbing.
This case began with two States, Missouri, and Louisiana, as well as various private parties, filing suit against popular social media companies, alleging that they had either blocked or downgraded posts on a variety of controversial topics, including “the COVID-19 laboratory leak theory, vaccine side effects and election fraud,” and “the Hunter Biden laptop” story.
According to the plaintiffs’ claims, Federal Government officials were “the ones pulling the strings,” i.e., they “coerced and threatened social-media platforms, forcing them to censor them
In its current form, the injunction prohibits the officials covered from doing two things. They cannot “coerce social media platforms into making “content-moderation decision”. Second, they cannot “meaningfully oppose” the “content-moderation efforts” of social media platforms. The Government was not happy with these restrictions and filed an emergency request asking us to stay this injunction until certiorari is granted.
The majority upholds the injunction despite the Government’s obvious failure to establish an irreparable threat. This allows the defendants continue to commit the types of First Amendment violations identified by the lower courts. The majority’s action is in direct opposition to the detailed findings of facts made by the lower courts…
This is a very unfortunate situation. Alito left out the fact that the Biden administration will be able to continue censoring opposing views into 2024 as the presidential campaign continues to get underway. This is a very unfortunate situation. Alito has not said that the Biden Administration will be able continue to censor opposing views until 2024, as the presidential campaign is still underway. The Biden Administration claimed that censoring political dissension during a campaign would cause irreparable damage. Alito believes that censoring political dissension will cause irreparable injury. Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett all sided with the Biden Administration. This does not bode very well for the case itself, but we will see. If the Biden administration is successful, the First Amendment will be effectively dead on the internet. Stay tuned.
