Democrats keep insisting that President Trump will kill democracy. This is a case of projection. Yes, if Trump were to incorporate the Democratic playbook, democracy would end, but anyone who thinks he will is delusional. The case, Murthy v. Missouri, asks the justices to consider the chilling effect of a president and his administration’s efforts to do away with free speech. There are countless memos from the Biden caliphate to social media companies to censor any speech that disagrees with Joe Biden.
Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, one of three doctors who joined the case as a plaintiff, told the Daily Caller News Foundation:
“Even if you have not been personally censored, you’ve been impacted by this censorship because the First Amendment exists, not just for the speaker, but also for the listener. It’s necessary in a democracy that people have access to both sides of a contested issue or a public debate.”
New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) President Mark Chenoweth said in a statement:
“The government’s job is to police the line between lawful and unlawful speech, not the line between true and false speech. Our Founding Fathers rightly did not trust the government to be the arbiter of truth. In fact, much of the speech the government suppressed in this case—about Covid-19 and Hunter Biden’s laptop—was truthful.”
Kheriaty told the DCNF:
VISIT OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL“Social media companies actually did try to push back in most instances, they did try to resist the government’s demands.”
“All kinds of other issues got caught up in this censorship machinery, from abortion and gender ideology, domestic lightning rod issues, to issues related to foreign policy. The breadth of the censorship was also shocking.”
CISA also directed the creation of the private-sector Election Integrity Partnership in 2020 to do censorship work the government could not do directly due to First Amendment concerns.
Additionally, agencies held regular industry meetings with platforms where they discussed concerns regarding misinformation and disinformation.
A few justices have already signaled their concern.
“Does the Government think that the First Amendment allows Executive Branch officials to engage in such conduct?” Justice Samuel Alito questioned in an October dissent joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
He worried that the majority’s decision to pause the injunction while they considered the appeal could be perceived as offering a “green light” for the government’s continued use of “heavy handed tactics” to suppress speech.
The #AdministrativeState is pressuring social media platforms to censor Americans like @DrJBhattacharya for sharing different opinions from the gov't.
This is a direct #freespeech violation & we look forward to defending our clients on 3/18 before #SCOTUS in Murthy v. Missouri! pic.twitter.com/EgNbxKxQDP
— New Civil Liberties Alliance (@NCLAlegal) March 13, 2024
The administration has defended its actions through every stage of litigation by asserting its own rights to “use the bully pulpit to address matters of public concern.”
“Social-media users have a First Amendment right to be free from governmental restrictions on their speech, but they have no First Amendment right to post content on private platforms that the platforms would prefer not to host,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued in a brief. “And as in other contexts, public officials may seek to persuade the platforms to exercise their editorial discretion in particular ways even though the government could not compel them to do so.”
“I’m hoping the case draws attention to this issue and helps people understand the nature of the censorship industrial complex — and just how powerful it has become,” Kheriaty said. “The digital age makes it possible for the government to have massive reach over content that it never was able to exercise before in the age of print media.”
