Stream: Supreme Court Considers Abolishing Free Speech On Social Media
"The federal government was ordered to stop stiffling free speech on Social media platforms by a federal court. The Supreme Court is now considering abolishing the first amendment and free speech by allowing the government to threaten and coerce social media platforms to publish only government positions on health policies or political content and not allow critics or different views "in an emergency".
Public Advocate has filed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to restore free speech by permanently ending the interference of federal agencies with the content of social media platforms no matter the claimed "urgency" as the interference has been ramped up to include political content, " says Eugene Delgaudio, president of Public Advocate.
PUBLIC ADVOCATE AMICUS BRIEF MURTHY V. MISSOURI FREE SPEECH CASE
LIVE STREAM SUPREME COURT ARGUMENTS ON MURTHY V. MISSOURI
The Biden administration's legal battle over social media content moderation reached the Supreme Court on Monday, with the justices are set to hear arguments over whether federal officials violated the First Amendment by urging platforms to remove posts they deemed false or misleading.
Two Republican attorneys general brought the case in a challenge to the administration's efforts to curb misinformation online - an effort they described as a government "campaign of censorship." They purported federal officials "coordinated and colluded" with social media platforms to "identify disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content."
At the heart of the case were attempts by the Biden administration to police online misinformation about the legitimacy of the 2020 election and COVID-19, when doubts about vaccines ran rampant.
Federal Government Claims 'Once-In-A-Lifetime Pandemic' Excuses First Amendment Violations
An attorney arguing in favor of government censorship at the Supreme Court Monday claimed federal emergencies excused First Amendment violations.
Justice Samuel Alito asked U.S. Principal Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher whether the administration believed the print media regarded themselves as "being on the same team as the federal government." The question came as Alito pressed Fletcher on the federal government treating online platforms as "subordinates" when officials demanded overt censorship.
"Potentially in the context of an effort to get Americans vaccinated during a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic," Fletcher said.
It doesn't change the First Amendment principles, but it's relevant to how they apply here. And I think it's important to understand that at this time, this was a time when thousands of Americans were still dying every week, and there was a hope that getting everyone vaccinated could stop the pandemic, and there was a concern that Americans were getting their news about the vaccine from the platforms and the platforms were promoting, not just posting but promoting bad information.
Alito pointed out that Americans receive their news from print, broadcast, and cable media and that publishers and producers of these mediums do not face the same pressure campaigns from federal officials to manipulate their coverage as online platforms did to alter algorithms. "It struck me as, wow, this is not what I understand the relationship to be."
Federalist Senior Legal Correspondent Margot Cleveland called the government's response "horrible" for three reasons. "1) because an emergency doesn't trump 1st amendment," Cleveland wrote on X, adding censorship also took place related to elections and Hunter Biden.