Judge\u2063 Terry Doughty\u2019s \u200bgroundbreaking ruling in\u200d the censorship case Missouri v. Biden<\/em> has\u200c captured \u2062widespread \u200dattention, especially after being affirmed\u200b by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.\u200c It’s no wonder. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has announced that it will take up the case. This could potentially be the most\u2062 significant Supreme Court term for\u200d the protection of free speech in history.<\/p>\n

However, there is another case that\u2064 holds even greater implications for \u2064the freedom of American speech: Robert F. Kennedy\u2064 Jr.’s lawsuit against Google. \u200dGoogle\u200b has \u2062repeatedly censored \u2064Kennedy’s political speech \u200don \u2062YouTube, and with Kennedy launching \u2062an\u2062 independent bid for\u200c the White House and Google \u200dintensifying its censorship efforts, this legal\u2062 battle has\u2062 gained immense significance.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Following a recent \u200dhearing,\u200c Kennedy’s case may also find its way\u2063 to the Supreme Court, which will \u2062have to confront the extraordinary measures taken\u200b by \u200dBig Tech to silence government critics like Kennedy. It will also address \u200cthe danger posed by the tech industry’s belief, shared\u2063 by many government\u200b officials \u200dand legal scholars, that more censorship\u2062 is necessary. (I should note that I am one of the lawyers leading the\u2063 Kennedy v.\u200c Google<\/em> case.)<\/p>\n
Prior to the 2016 election, \u2064Big Tech rarely \u2062engaged in censorship. They provided \u2063users with tools to block unwanted content and used algorithms to filter out explicit \u2063material.\u2063 Otherwise,\u200c the online realm, from the \u200cinternet to\u2063 social media platforms designed for smartphones \u2064and tablets, functioned as\u200d a public forum\u2014a digital equivalent of a town square\u2014where people could freely express\u2062 their views and engage in debates on political, social, cultural, and other\u2064 issues. Content moderation policies primarily focused on blocking \u200bviolent behavior and did \u200dnot involve censoring political or social speech.<\/p>\n
In fact, during the “Arab Spring” uprisings in 2010 and 2011, social media platforms played\u200b a crucial role. YouTube \u2064even made exceptions to \u200cits ban on violent content, allowing\u2062 educational, documentary, and scientific videos related to the \u200cMiddle \u2063East uprisings. \u2062However, in response to violent postings by \u2064ISIS, YouTube reversed\u2062 its policy in 2014 and prohibited content from\u200b terrorists and other “dangerous organizations.”<\/p>\n
However, everything changed after\u200c 2016\u2064 when\u2063 two seismic events\u2014the\u2062 United Kingdom’s \u2064Brexit vote and Donald \u2062Trump’s presidential victory\u2014shook the\u200c political \u200cestablishment. These \u2064unexpected \u2062outcomes\u2063 led to the development\u2063 of an alternative explanation: online\u200b misinformation \u2062deceived voters, influencing them to make “wrong” choices.\u200d This narrative gained\u2064 further traction\u200c during the Covid-19 pandemic, resulting in a new era \u200cof\u200d online content moderation.<\/p>\n
For instance, Facebook began \u200cblocking posts that promoted protests\u200b against government “stay at\u200b home” orders, claiming\u200c that such events violated social distancing guidelines. \u2062As I highlighted in an article last year, these actions demonstrated a concerning disregard for civil liberties, \u200cwith even organizations like the ACLU \u200bsupporting them.<\/p>\n
But\u2064 that was just \u200dthe beginning. By 2021, \u200dtech giants went \u2062as far\u200d as removing\u2062 the sitting U.S. \u2064president, Donald Trump, from \u200btheir\u2064 platforms. Calls\u2062 for online\u2064 speech censorship escalated, particularly after Joe Biden assumed\u200c office.<\/p>\n
Shortly after Biden’s inauguration, White House officials started pressuring Big Tech to censor dissenting voices, including those of Kennedy. Kennedy had emerged as a prominent\u2064 critic of government health \u2064officials, particularly Anthony Fauci, the president’s chief medical adviser<\/a>.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
As Judge Doughty \u2063and the Fifth Circuit explained in Missouri v. \u2064Biden<\/em>, the \u2063White House’s censorship campaign gained\u200c momentum during \u2064the\u200b first \u2062six months of the Biden administration. It initially targeted public health critics like Kennedy, who challenged the \u200cgovernment’s\u2064 efforts to \u2062promote\u200b Covid-19 \u2062vaccination. However, \u200cit expanded to censor individuals who\u200b disagreed with public health officials<\/a> on various \u200btopics.<\/p>\n
One crucial aspect of Kennedy’s lawsuit\u200b against Google revolves around the fact that tech platforms rely entirely on government \u2064sources to determine what content should be\u200d removed. Supporters\u2064 of content moderation \u2064policies<\/a> often \u200cargue that tech\u2062 companies\u2062 are private entities with the freedom to act as they please. But \u200cwhat happens when these companies depend \u200csolely on the government to decide what speech should be censored? Why should the \u200dgovernment have \u2064the authority \u200cto determine what is true and what is\u2063 “misinformation”? After all, the government cannot directly regulate false speech, as established by the Supreme Court in N.Y. Times Company v. Sullivan<\/em>. If the government lacks the power to directly\u2063 regulate such content, why should \u2063Big Tech \u200cplatforms be allowed to rely on the government for regulation?<\/p>\n
While \u200dthe cyber-left may argue that tech platforms are privately owned, it’s\u200b worth noting that the Supreme Court has previously referred to\u2063 the internet \u2062as the “modern public square.” Additionally, the Court’s liberal justices have\u200c acknowledged that conveying expressive content using \u2062someone else’s \u2062physical infrastructure is not a new concept. The tech giants, resembling public forums like town squares and sidewalks, have historically upheld\u200c free speech \u200cprinciples, regardless of ownership. In fact, the surgeon general\u2064 has even described them as digital environments.<\/p>\n
Some may argue that no official designation has\u2063 been made \u2063declaring tech \u2062platforms as public forums.\u2062 However, hasn’t that\u200b already been established by\u2063 the Communications\u2064 Decency Act\u200c of 1996? This law granted tech platforms immunity\u2062 in \u200dexchange\u2062 for hosting public speech, essentially creating a \u200dglobal community message board. The modern internet would not exist\u2064 without this legislation.<\/p>\n
Undoubtedly, the \u200bSupreme\u200d Court may \u200chesitate \u2062to declare tech platforms as public forums, as it may not align with the\u2064 conservative\u2063 institutionalist philosophy of Chief Justice \u200dJohn Roberts. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who authored the opinion in \u2064 Packingham v. North Carolina<\/em>, would have been more receptive to such an \u2064argument. However, his retirement and replacement by Justice \u2064Brett Kavanaugh, who has shown little interest\u2062 in free speech matters, complicates the situation. \u2064In fact, Kavanaugh authored an anti-free speech\u2062 opinion in the 2019 case Manhattan Community Access Corporation v. Halleck<\/em>.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, \u2063designating tech platforms as public forums would be a wise decision. In Missouri v.\u200c Biden<\/em>, the \u2064Supreme Court grapples with the \u200ddistinction between government speech, which is encouraged, and government\u2062 coercion, which is prohibited. This is why the \u200bCourt stayed\u2063 the injunction against government officials issued by the\u2064 Fifth Circuit.\u2062 Instead of solely focusing on this distinction, the Supreme Court\u2064 should\u2062 recognize tech platforms as public forums where viewpoint discrimination is always forbidden, while reasonable \u200ctime, place, and manner restrictions remain valid.<\/p>\n
This is precisely why Kennedy\u200c v.\u200c Google<\/em> holds immense significance. It delves beyond \u2063the government speech versus government coercion debate<\/a> that may trouble free speech\u200d advocates \u200bin Missouri v. Biden<\/em>. It centers on the meaning of freedom of speech in \u200cthe American political process. It is high time for the\u200d Supreme Court to address these\u2063 issues and define what freedom of speech entails in the digital age for all \u2062Americans.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
\t\t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n
rnrn <\/p>\n
Significant\u2063 importance.<\/h2>\n
The Importance \u2063of Protecting Free \u200bSpeech: The Case of Missouri\u200b v. Biden and\u200d Kennedy v. Google<\/p>\n
Judge Terry Doughty’s groundbreaking ruling\u200c in the censorship case Missouri v. Biden has captured \u2064widespread \u2062attention, especially \u200dafter being affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of\u200c Appeals. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has announced that\u200d it will take up the case, potentially making it \u200bthe most significant Supreme Court term for the protection of free speech in history.<\/p>\n
However, there is another case\u200b that holds even greater implications for the freedom \u2062of American \u200dspeech: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s\u2064 lawsuit against Google. Google has repeatedly censored Kennedy’s political speech on YouTube, and with Kennedy\u2063 launching an \u2063independent bid for\u2062 the White House and Google intensifying\u200b its censorship efforts, this legal battle has gained<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Judge Terry Doughty\u2019s historic opinion in the censorship case Missouri v. Biden has been getting a lot of attention, especially after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed it. Rightly so. Now the U.S. Supreme Court says it will hear the case. This could be the most important Supreme Court term for free speech ever.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1334,"featured_media":2094835,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[546],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2094834","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-federalist"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2094834","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1334"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2094834"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2094834\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2094835"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2094834"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2094834"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2094834"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}