The Supreme Court has issued a number of controversial – but correct – decisions lately. But to use the old entertainment cliché, “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.” There is a case that has not yet reached the Supreme Court, but I am betting it will in the future. The case is Missouri v. Biden et al. It is in the earliest stage of judicial review, but already it could have enormous immediate impact.
Basically, Missouri v. Biden is a case brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana against several federal Executive Branch agencies under the Biden administration. The plaintiffs are accusing the federal government of violating the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans by coordinating with social media platforms to censor or suppress the expressed opinions of individuals and organizations that do not comport to the Biden political narratives on such subjects as the Covid Pandemic, vaccines, elections and other political topics. The censorship has been primarily directed at conservatives.
Judge Terry Doughty considers the Biden administration’s efforts to shut down opposition statements of such a serious assault on the First Amendment, that he issued an injunction forbidding administration officials from contacting social media platforms until the case can be heard.
In issuing his injunction, Doughty said there was “substantial evidence” that the government had undertaken a “far-reaching censorship campaign.” He called it “the most massive attack against free speech in United States history” and compared it to the Orwellian Ministry of Truth from the novel “1984.”
Doughty considers the actions of the Biden administration to be such a threat to public speech and education that he imposed an unprecedented injunction on government agencies and officials — including the White House, the Department of Health and Human Services and the FBI. He has banned them from contacting social media platforms for “the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.” Basically, the plaintiffs are accusing the Biden administration of using political influence and leverage to shut down any speech that refutes official narratives.
By way of example, you will recall how early reports about Hunter Biden’s laptop were deemed to be untrue. In fact, the White House and the FBI claimed that it was a concoction of Russian propaganda. In response, social platforms were encouraged to blocked any postings that claimed the laptop was the property of Hunter Biden – even the reposting of a New York Post article was blocked by Facebook. Eventually, it was established that the Post story was correct, and the government statements were … well … lies.
There is nothing more fundamental to a free society than the unfettered ability to speak truth to power. If the choice is between government censorship or occasional misinformation being offered up in public forms, the latter is the only option for a free society. The First Amendment is to guarantee our right to speak – even if wrong. Truth is best determined by an exchange of opinions, not by the suppression of one view.
In recent years, we have seen a dangerous trend in which the vehicles of public information and dialogue are increasing aligning with one political force. Both social media platforms and large segments of the news media have ceased to be platforms for the exchange of ideas, opinions and facts — and have become propaganda vehicles for a specific political ideology.
Missouri v. Biden is the first significant case to address this situation. It could wind up being one of the federal courts most important cases.
So there ‘tis,