They say bad facts make bad law. But bad hypotheticals make even worse law, especially when they come from a clueless set of judges considering the most important free speech case in years.
That thought repeatedly crossed my mind as I listened to the U.S. Supreme Court make a mockery of free speech in Mondays arguments in the Murthy v. Missouri censorship case.
Make no mistake: The actions that led the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana to sue the Biden administration were not normal. They were unprecedented, both in the extremes to which government officials went in their effort to pressure tech companies into censoring viewpoints they did not like and in the way the companies submitted to the governments pressure. To use White House official Rob Flahertys word, they became partners in an Orwellian scheme to remove speech the government deemed false, misleading, or, in a perfect reflection of our elites beloved new nanny state, harmful to society.
The institutionalists on the Supreme Court appeared not to care. They seemed more concerned about chilling the governments ability to criticize media outlets that print stories they dont like something that, without attribution, Justice Elena Kagan said happens thousands of times a day in the federal government and which Kagan said she does herself. The institutionalists appeared more worried about a hypothetical of restricting law enforcement from informing a tech company (they always use the benign term inform) that people were using its platform to promote a teen suicide game.
Poor Benjamin Aguiaga, the Louisiana solicitor general, had to deal with that and other absurd hypotheticals throughout the argument. At one point, Justice Samuel Alito came to Aguiagas rescue, noting that some of your most recent colloquy with my colleagues have gotten off into questions that I didnt take it from your brief we you think we actually need to decide in this case. Alito correctly observed that your principal argument was that whatever coercion means, it what happened here is sufficient and that coercion doesnt mean only it doesnt apply only when the government says do this, and if you dont do this, there are going to be legal consequences when it says that in this same breath, but that its a more flexible standard and you have to take into account the whole course of the relationship regarding this matter.
That point went missing throughout the Murthy argument. The lawyering did not help. Ive faced my share of hostile panels, so I sympathize with Aguiaga. But he did not rise to the occasion. He got pulled down a rabbit hole with hypotheticals that he could not win. He failed to mention that the state action question that is, the question of whether censorship by a private technology company should be held to constitutional scrutiny because it is traceable to the government is not the end of the inquiry. Even if the plaintiff shows that private action constitutes state action, he or she must still show that the challenged action violates the Constitution.
That is easier said than done. Take the hypotheticals that Justices Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson offered. No judge would find the removal of a teen suicide video to violate the First Amendment, or any other law, because the First Amendment does not protect incitement or speech integral to criminal conduct. For the same reason, no judge would find the removal of terrorist recruitment videos, or child pornography, to violate the First Amendment. Indeed, Congress gave tech companies the power to remove such content in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
The state action doctrine matters in this case because the challenged action the removal of speech based on its viewpoint is so noxious. It is precisely what the founders drafted the First Amendment to prohibit. It is always subject to strict scrutiny especially when, as here, it involves matters of public concern, including public health policy.
That is why Kagan and Jackson had to create strawman arguments based on extreme examples involving speech that gets less (or no) protection under the First Amendment. And while Aguiaga obliged them, he did so in a way that left several of the other justices, especially Amy Coney Barrett, confused about what standard he was discussing.
Aguiaga also failed to emphasize the key point of how the lower courts decided this matter: a preliminary injunction issued after extensive discovery that generated a massive factual record and a detailed opinion that the 5th Circuit largely affirmed in a 3-0 opinion. Appellate courts usually show great deference to such decisions.
Aguiaga should have mentioned that. He could have evaded the bizarre hypotheticals thrown out by Kagan, Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor by explaining that those facts would result in a different factual record that would likely yield a different result.
In fact, lets be honest: Those records wouldnt exist because nobody would file those lawsuits. The attorney general of Louisiana certainly wouldnt sue the federal government for trying to combat the circulation of teen suicide videos. Nor would the Louisiana AG sue the federal government for telling Big Tech that you are hosting a lot of terrorist speech, which is going to increase the chances that theres going to be some terrible harm thats going to take place, another absurd hypothetical Kagan proffered.
The states involvement made this unique. What also made this case special the reason Judge Terry Doughty issued his opinion on Independence Day was the fact that the federal government was not targeting specific content that it could show posed an imminent threat of harm (like the terrorist videos or teen suicide videos in the justices hypotheticals) but was pressuring Big Tech to remove entire viewpoints about matters of public concern. And not just any viewpoints but those that disagreed with, or merely questioned, the governments viewpoint on certain topics. In other words, the government was pressuring the tech companies to silence dissent.
To his credit, Aguiaga tried to make that point a few times, but he did not do it nearly enough. Like the lawyers in the NetChoice cases, he also failed to challenge the justices casual use of the term misinformation and their assumption that tech companies are only censoring the bad stuff that appears online (whatever that means).
That is one of the most troubling aspects of these cases. After all, what is misinformation? In the context of public health, I assume the Supreme Court would say anything that public health officials say is false, misleading, or harmful.
But why should the government get to define what is true and what is false? Why should the government get to define what speech is misleading? Why should the government define what speech is harmful?
Those should be the central questions in these censorship cases. That is why the Missouri and Louisiana AGs filed this case. After all, speech that the government calls misinformation and which it has successfully pressured Big Tech to block often turns out to be true. Take, for example, the authenticity of Hunter Bidens laptop and the efficacy of the Covid-19 shots.
That is why the Supreme Court has never required that speech be true to be protected by the First Amendment. It has also rebuffed efforts to reduce the legal protection given to offensive (or some would say harmful) speech, including obscenity. Indeed, although obscenity is widely assumed to be unprotected by the First Amendment, the constitutional analysis is more nuanced.
The Murthy argument showed a Supreme Court that is headed in a very different direction. Justices Alito and Neil Gorsuch were the lone bright spots. They were the only ones who asked probing questions of both sides and seemed to care more about protecting the rights of ordinary Americans than unnamed federal bureaucrats.
Following Justice Antonin Scalias death, Justice Clarence Thomas has also become a leading voice for the courts originalists, even during oral argument, a practice he once seemed to disdain (I was there on Feb. 22, 2006, when Thomas asked a question in Holmes v. South Carolina; he did not ask another question until 2016).
Of course, there may still be a way to convert the courts three leftists back to the free speech side of society. Just a few years ago, in Manhattan Community Access Corporation v. Halleck, Kagan took the side of free speech when dissenting from a decision written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh that ratified a private companys refusal to broadcast a controversial documentary. Perhaps the leftists would change their tune if it was Donald Trumps White House that was pressuring tech companies to remove the speech of their political opponents.
What if Google decided that abortion is murder, and harmful to women who go through it, so it decided to remove speech that promotes abortion and abortion rights from YouTube? Would Kagan really have no problem with that? Would she be OK with Google removing videos of her criticizing the Dobbs decision from YouTube?
Or suppose Trump wins the 2024 election and his administration takes a hard stand against transgenderism. Under government pressure, Google decides that trans ideology is dangerous and harmful to children (it could cite plenty of evidence for support, of course) and says pro-trans videos should be removed from YouTube. Thats fine? We are supposed to believe that Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson not to mention untold numbers of Democrat-appointed judges across America would go along with that?
I think not. Aguiaga should have said so. Instead, he showed little resistance to a hostile bench that we knew was coming and that could render one of the most destructive constitutional decisions since the 19th century.
Scott Street is a Democratic lawyer and consultant in Los Angeles. He regularly writes about legal and political issues.
The rest is here:
Supreme Court Makes A Mockery Of Free Speech - The Federalist
- NRA case shows the Supreme Court must stop informal censorship - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Microsoft faces bipartisan criticism for alleged censorship on Bing in China - The Register - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Is Fighting Misinformation Censorship? The Supreme Court Will Decide. - Reply All | Gimlet - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- The censorship industry and it's connection to Israel - JNS.org - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- How to improve Chinese TV? Better censorship, says top tellie-maker - The Register - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Up First briefing: Putin wins Russian election; SCOTUS censorship case - NPR - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Elon Musk calls X number one source of news in the worldand also a hardcore, player versus player platform - Fortune - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Asking is not censorship: No First Amendment bar for government to talk to publishers - New York Daily News - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- X-Men: The Animated Series was defined by its censors - Polygon - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Justice Jackson lambasted for 'concern' 1st Amendment could 'hamstring government' in COVID censorship hearing - Fox News - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- The Beginning of the End for the Censorship-Industrial Complex? - National Review - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- RFK Jr.: Government shouldnt have role in social media moderation - NewsNation Now - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Self-Pollinating Narrator of 'Wishtree' Called 'Indoctrination,' Virginia District Group Read Canceled | Censorship News - News Letter Journal - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- This Country Can't Afford A SCOTUS Weak On Internet Censorship - The Federalist - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Banning TikTok is just the first step to censorship - Point Park Globe - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- SCOTUS Ponders Whether Biden Administration Coerced Social Media Platforms To Censor Speech - Reason - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- In Virginia, Censors Attempt to Axe 'Wishtree' - Publishers Weekly - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Elon Musk Says Moderation Is a Propaganda Word for Censorship About Offensive X Posts - Rolling Stone - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- No matter how you view TikTok, banning the platform would be censorship - The Daily Orange - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- China must look beyond censorship and economic power to win hearts and minds - South China Morning Post - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- 'The View' Producers Forced To Censor Ana Navarro's Expletive As She Talks About Biden - Daily Caller - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- How China Censors Critics of the Economy - The New York Times - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- A Startup Allegedly 'Hacked the World.' Then Came the Censorshipand Now the Backlash - WIRED - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- Negative Takes on China's Economy Are Disappearing From the Internet - The Wall Street Journal - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- Let The Government Censor Away Through Agents It Controls, Say Cabal Of A.G.s To U.S. Supreme Court Wirepoints - Wirepoints - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- 14 Massachusetts colleges land on restrictive free speech list: Censorship and terrible policies - Boston Herald - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- The Association of Appin Training Centers is waging a global censorship campaign to stop you from reading these ... - MuckRock - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- Norway owns a part of Putin's propaganda and censorship machine - The Independent Barents Observer - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- Censorship? That's just obscene! | Opinion | register-herald.com - Beckley Register-Herald - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- Censorship in the West is the same as Mao's China, says Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei - Sky News - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- South Korean government reported to announce plans for smoking scene censorship from K-dramas and films at the ... - Sportskeeda - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- Prime Video's 'Expats' Was Filmed in Hong Kongbut You Can't Watch It There - TIME - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- ADF to 8th Circuit: Govt can't censor pro-life views - ADF Media - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- Fox News Forced To Censor Trump As He Rants About Gavin Newsom And Michelle Obama - Towleroad - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- NYC teachers will exchange notes on how to get around censorship to teach kids about the genocide in Gaza - New York Post - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- The GOP Has a Plan for Online Safety. It Involves Censoring LGBTQ Content. - The New Republic - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- Opinion: Need help finding a good book? Try one your 9th grader isn't allowed to read - Los Angeles Times - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- 'Gateway to Censorship': Journalist Bodies Express Concern Over Proposed Broadcasting Services Bill - The Wire - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- The Dangerous Pursuit of Journalism in Russia: A Harrowing Reality - Medriva - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- Global censorship campaign raises alarms - Freedom of the Press Foundation - January 21st, 2024 [January 21st, 2024]
- Texas Library Censorship Attempt Struck Down By 5th Circuit - Above the Law - January 21st, 2024 [January 21st, 2024]
- Attacks, arrests, threats, censorship: The high risks of reporting the Israel-Gaza war - Committee to Protect Journalists - January 21st, 2024 [January 21st, 2024]
- South Sudan's Battle with Censorship: Removing Hateful News Articles - The Organization for World Peace - January 21st, 2024 [January 21st, 2024]
- Intimidation leading to censorship in Wisconsin school libraries - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - January 21st, 2024 [January 21st, 2024]
- Censorship over Palestine: Holocaust Survivor Decries Repression After Talks in Germany Are Canceled - Democracy Now! - January 21st, 2024 [January 21st, 2024]
- As Legacy Media Continues in Decline, It Espouses Censorship More - Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence - January 21st, 2024 [January 21st, 2024]
- Trump Nomination: Pundit Expects Censorship, Calls for Riots - The Dallas Express - January 21st, 2024 [January 21st, 2024]
- Data Overwhelmingly Supports Libraries and Library Workers: Book Censorship News, January 5, 2024 - Book Riot - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Blame adults these days for censorship - Times Higher Education - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- CNN admits it runs all Gaza coverage through bureau monitored by Israeli military censor - Salon - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Does your Pa. school policy open the door to censorship? - phillyBurbs.com - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Iran's internet price rises, and so does the fear of greater censorship - TechRadar - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Report highlights censorship and repression of Palestine solidarity across Europe - Morning Star Online - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- 2024, the year that four billion go the polls - Index on Censorship - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Government Internet censorship was imposed 196 times last year - 9to5Mac - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- In the shadows of self-censorship: The impact of the Cyber Security Act on Bangladeshs LGBTQ+ movement - Global Voices - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Jeffrey Wright Says Studio Hired a Replacement Actor to Dub Him After He Refused to Censor the N-Word in a Film: Nah. Thats Not Happening - Variety - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Comedian and musician Tom Smothers dies at 86: A victim of government and corporate censorship in the late 1960s - WSWS - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Polish pavilion selection at Venice Biennale gets political as rejected artist cries censorship - Art Newspaper - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Wartime censorship is necessary, but must be responsible - editorial - The Jerusalem Post - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Jeffrey Wright Says a Replacement Actor Dubbed His Lines When He Refused to Censor the N-Word - PEOPLE - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Judicial Watch Sues Biden Censorship Agency for Records Targeting Judicial Watch and Its President Tom Fitton - Judicial Watch - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Jeffrey Wright Says He Refused To Censor The N-Word In Ride With The Devil & Walked Away From Dubbing Film - Deadline - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Academic Bias and Censorship Are Huge Problems, and We Can Prove It - National Review - January 4th, 2024 [January 4th, 2024]
- Laws banning semi-automatic weapons and library censorship to take effect in Illinois - Toronto Star - January 4th, 2024 [January 4th, 2024]
- Here Are The States Urging SCOTUS To Allow Biden Admin To Coordinate With Big Tech To Censor Online Speech - Daily Caller - January 4th, 2024 [January 4th, 2024]
- China Tries To Censor Data About Nearly 1 Billion People in Poverty - Newsweek - January 4th, 2024 [January 4th, 2024]
- Laws banning semi-automatic weapons and library censorship to take effect in Illinois - Firstpost - January 4th, 2024 [January 4th, 2024]
- Iowa School District removes over 70 books without following proper review procedures - Blogging Censorship - January 4th, 2024 [January 4th, 2024]
- Chinese election interference tests Taiwans capability to defend freedom of speech - Index on Censorship - January 4th, 2024 [January 4th, 2024]
- Laws banning semi-automatic weapons and library censorship to take effect in Illinois - Index-Journal - January 4th, 2024 [January 4th, 2024]
- Censorship and the case for institutional literacy - The Hill - December 20th, 2023 [December 20th, 2023]
- Release Of Aquaman And The Lost Kingdoms Dubbed Versions DELAYED Due To Censor Board - Times Now - December 20th, 2023 [December 20th, 2023]
- Gary Simmons on Censorship, Minstrelsy, and the Scourge of Art Fairs - Interview - December 20th, 2023 [December 20th, 2023]
- Jeff Crouere: Censorship is un-American; free speech is the answer - The Franklin Sun - December 20th, 2023 [December 20th, 2023]
- Mother Russia. Who is the face of Russian online censorship, scourge of Russian rappers and Gen-Z icon - . - December 20th, 2023 [December 20th, 2023]
- Why Middle East scholars are self-censoring in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war - NPR - December 20th, 2023 [December 20th, 2023]
- "Keeping Your Mouth Shut: Spiraling Self-Censorship in the United States" - Reason - December 20th, 2023 [December 20th, 2023]
- EU TARGETS Elon Musk's Twitter for MORE CENSORSHIP Over 'HAMAS PROPAGANDA': Rising Reacts - The Hill - December 20th, 2023 [December 20th, 2023]
- Artists protest ongoing censorship of Palestinian culture in the UK - WSWS - December 20th, 2023 [December 20th, 2023]