The Supreme Court's Ruling on Murthy v. Missouri

Introduction

The Supreme Court recently ruled against myself and my fellow co-plaintiffs in the Murthy v. Missouri case, with a 6 to 3 decision. This ruling essentially nullifies the First Amendment in the era of social media. The case revolved around a preliminary injunction issued by lower federal courts, which ordered the Biden Administration to cease pressuring social media platforms to censor and shadowban people and ideas that the government disapproves of.

The Preliminary Injunction

On July 4th of the previous year, federal Judge Terry Doughty issued the preliminary injunction that was the focus of our case. He ruled that, based on the evidence already considered, we were likely to win on the merits of our case. He described the Biden Administration's censorship campaign as "Orwellian" and a clear violation of the First Amendment.

The Case Facts

The facts of the case are straightforward, well-documented, and shocking. They explain why the lower courts, including a unanimous three-judge panel of the Federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, issued the preliminary injunction to halt the Biden Administration's censorship efforts. The injunction that reached the Supreme Court was narrowly tailored, specifically excluding national security-related communications between the government and social media companies, as well as communications regarding criminal activity on social media platforms.

Evidence of Government Pressure on Social Media Companies

Our case's discovery process revealed that employees from a dozen federal government agencies and the Biden White House directly pressured social media companies to censor viewpoints that contradicted the official narratives they were pushing on the American people. There were even emails from the White House to Facebook, showing government officials threatening to use regulatory power to harm social media companies that did not comply with censorship demands.

Government Tactics to Suppress Speech

Depositions of high-ranking career staff and political employees, as well as unearthed emails between the government and social media companies like Facebook and Twitter, revealed the government's tactics to suppress speech. The Surgeon General's office, the FBI, the CDC, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and the White House were all closely involved.

The Role of Universities and NGOs

Government agencies funded universities and NGOs to support enterprises with Orwellian names like "Virality Project" and "Center for Countering Digital Hate" to create a target list for the Administration's censorship efforts. These entities, often linked to prominent universities like Stanford and the University of Washington, worked with corporate teams in social media companies' "trust and safety" divisions to censor offending speech.

Issues with Misinformation Identification

The problem is that the government and these entities are bad at identifying misinformation, and they have a predilection for censoring people and ideas that are critical of government policy, whether those criticisms are true or false.

Instances of Censorship

For instance, the Biden administration insisted on censoring and deboosting content that accurately pointed out the rapidly waning efficacy of the Covid vaccine against infections, which they used to justify executive orders imposing vaccine mandates. The Biden White House also pressured Facebook to censor vaccine discussions that did not violate Facebook's community standards. In response to harsh communications from Biden Covid advisor Andy Slavitt in 2021, Facebook limited the reach of these groups and censored them.

Irony of the Censorship Campaign

Ironically, even the White House itself was caught by its censorship demands. At the Biden administration's behest, Facebook implemented algorithms to suppress posts their computers deemed "anti-vax." In April 2021, when the CDC issued a "pause" on the distribution of the Johnson & Johnson Covid vaccine because it had identified an elevated level of strokes in women, the Facebook algorithms tagged the White House account as an anti-vax account. The Administration angrily ordered Facebook to stop censoring its speech.

Impact of the Censorship Campaign

The censorship campaign harmed the health of Americans by preventing accurate speech by me and others from reaching the attention of the American people. Children were kept out of schools for years, churches, mosques, and synagogues were closed, businesses shuttered, and unvaccinated people lost their jobs and faced social discrimination because of misinformation put forward by the government. Had the government permitted a fair debate on the science of Covid, they would have lost on the merits. The continuing crisis of high excess mortality and many other harms caused by blinkered Covid policies might have been avoided.

The Supreme Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court's reasoning in denying the preliminary injunction against the Biden Administration is that the plaintiffs in the case, which included the states of Missouri and Louisiana, me, and several other targets of government censorship, have not established "standing" to sue the government on First Amendment grounds. The ruling, in effect, requires a chain of emails from a particular government bureaucrat to a social media company demanding that a social media company censor speech.

Implications of the Ruling

Since this censorship activity takes place in the dark recesses of government bureaucracies, outside of the capacity of regular citizens to observe, it sets a standard that is impossible to meet absent extraordinary circumstances. The ruling also ignores the nature of the government censorship activities, which focuses more on censoring ideas and narrative themes than on censoring particular people. By requiring such a standard for "standing" in First Amendment cases, the Supreme Court has effectively greenlit sophisticated government censorship operations that moot the First Amendment.

Next Steps

The case now goes back down to the lower courts for more discovery and probing of the government censorship operation. While I anticipate we will win there, the case may come back up to the Supreme Court in due course. More importantly, though, our loss in the Supreme Court points to the need for Congress and voters to act to protect American free speech rights now that it is clear that the Supreme Court will not do so.

Call to Action

Congress should pass a law prohibiting the executive branch and associated federal bureaucracies from censoring Americans via direct and indirect pressure on social media, and it should cut funding to university and NGO operations that the government uses to launder its social censorship schemes. Voters should demand of every candidate for office, including the presidency, where they stand on the modern censorship operation and vote accordingly.

A Silver Lining

In a sense, by exposing and publicizing the government's censorship operation, which cannot survive in the sunlight, we have already won despite the disappointing result in the Supreme Court.

Bottom Line

The Murthy v. Missouri case has shed light on the concerning issue of government censorship on social media platforms. Regardless of the Supreme Court's ruling, the case has revealed the extent to which the government has been involved in suppressing free speech online. It's a reminder of the importance of the First Amendment and the need for vigilance in protecting our rights. What are your thoughts on this matter? Share this article with your friends and discuss. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is everyday at 6pm.