On March 18, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Murthy v. Missouri challenging whether the government can induce social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook to censor constitutionally protected free speech. A sinister web of federal agencies, the White House, social media platforms, NGOs and others are orchestrating a vast system of censorship to suppress viewpoints that contradict “preferred government narratives”about COVID-19 policies, climate change, election integrity and other issues that should be open to free & fair debate.
Thank you for this interview. Grateful for all who are fighting for free speech. We are praying for the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution. For such a time as this.
Must be interesting but not on Spotify, nor Facebook, nor Twitter, nor TikTok. Not looking to get surveilled. Oh, I must have something to hide, right? Of course it's most suspicious to not participate in social media.
It's good to see this effort, but it seems pretty clear that the Supreme Court will not uphold the lower courts' decisions. The government cannot coerce, but it can pressure. Here the social media platforms had a choice. They could have, and often did, refuse to go along with what the government suggested. The plaintiffs' beef is with the social media platforms, not the government.
Why? Because the social media platforms made their own content moderation policies. The government didn't force them to adopt government policies. The government called certain accounts to the social media platforms' attention, and let the social media platform decide itself what action to take. The social media platforms were cooperating with the government of their own free will. They weren't coerced.
The plaintiffs in this case made much out of little. The FBI, for example, would go to Twitter and pay them to look at certain accounts to see if they were legitimate or violated Twitter's own policies. Twitter would look at the accounts and make a decision, based on information the FBI never saw. There's no problem with that as long as the social media platform makes the decision.
The people from the government didn't make threats if their requests were not granted. The only threats were made from other government officials, general threats unconnected to specific requests. That's very different from the NRA v. Vullo case, argued the same day, that showed an official in the New York state government did coerce insurance companies, not just pressure them. She threatened to take action against insurance companies who did business with the NRA. That's a no-no, and will rightfully get slapped down.
Look at what Twitter is doing now. Twitter canned all of its content moderation policies and now allows free speech in almost all cases, short of it being illegal. Now called X, Twitter is not coerced by the government to do anything. The other social media platforms could do the same, but choose not to. Not because of coercion, but because of their strong liberal leanings that are consistent with the Biden administration's policies. Cooperation, not coercion.
Thank you for this interview. Grateful for all who are fighting for free speech. We are praying for the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution. For such a time as this.
Must be interesting but not on Spotify, nor Facebook, nor Twitter, nor TikTok. Not looking to get surveilled. Oh, I must have something to hide, right? Of course it's most suspicious to not participate in social media.
It's good to see this effort, but it seems pretty clear that the Supreme Court will not uphold the lower courts' decisions. The government cannot coerce, but it can pressure. Here the social media platforms had a choice. They could have, and often did, refuse to go along with what the government suggested. The plaintiffs' beef is with the social media platforms, not the government.
Why? Because the social media platforms made their own content moderation policies. The government didn't force them to adopt government policies. The government called certain accounts to the social media platforms' attention, and let the social media platform decide itself what action to take. The social media platforms were cooperating with the government of their own free will. They weren't coerced.
The plaintiffs in this case made much out of little. The FBI, for example, would go to Twitter and pay them to look at certain accounts to see if they were legitimate or violated Twitter's own policies. Twitter would look at the accounts and make a decision, based on information the FBI never saw. There's no problem with that as long as the social media platform makes the decision.
The people from the government didn't make threats if their requests were not granted. The only threats were made from other government officials, general threats unconnected to specific requests. That's very different from the NRA v. Vullo case, argued the same day, that showed an official in the New York state government did coerce insurance companies, not just pressure them. She threatened to take action against insurance companies who did business with the NRA. That's a no-no, and will rightfully get slapped down.
Look at what Twitter is doing now. Twitter canned all of its content moderation policies and now allows free speech in almost all cases, short of it being illegal. Now called X, Twitter is not coerced by the government to do anything. The other social media platforms could do the same, but choose not to. Not because of coercion, but because of their strong liberal leanings that are consistent with the Biden administration's policies. Cooperation, not coercion.