{"id":2208033,"date":"2024-03-28T07:22:02","date_gmt":"2024-03-28T11:22:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/scotus-errs-in-murthy-v-missouri-by-assuming-big-tech-is-just-like-print-media\/"},"modified":"2024-03-28T07:25:22","modified_gmt":"2024-03-28T11:25:22","slug":"scotus-errs-in-murthy-v-missouri-by-assuming-big-tech-is-just-like-print-media","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/scotus-errs-in-murthy-v-missouri-by-assuming-big-tech-is-just-like-print-media\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS made a mistake in Murthy v. Missouri by wrongly equating Big Tech with print media"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">32<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fscotus-errs-in-murthy-v-missouri-by-assuming-big-tech-is-just-like-print-media%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2208033&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>Plaintiffs challenged \u200bfederal government&#8217;s alleged censorship on social media in \u2063the Murthy v. Missouri case. Justice Alito highlighted the difference \u200bin\u2062 treatment between social media and \u2064print media, raising concerns about government influence. The \u2062unique power dynamics between government interactions with\u2064 print \u2063media and social media were discussed during the hearing, shedding\u200c light on the complexities of free speech issues.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<p><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><?xml encoding=\"utf-8\" ?><\/p>\n<div class=\"article-content\">\n<p>Along with my co-plaintiffs, I was at the Supreme Court last week for oral arguments in our <em>Murthy v. Missouri<\/em> case, in which we are challenging the federal government\u2019s alleged censorship on social media. The Supreme Court will likely rule in June whether to uphold, modify, or strike down the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals\u2019 injunction against five federal agencies, in what, the district court judge <a href=\"https:\/\/storage.courtlistener.com\/recap\/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520\/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.293.0_1.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">wrote<\/a>, \u201carguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States\u2019 history.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>At the hearing, Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that emails between the White House and Facebook \u201cshowed constant pestering of Facebook.\u201d He went on to comment, \u201cI cannot imagine federal officials taking this approach to the print media. \u2026 It\u2019s treating these platforms like subordinates.\u201d He then asked the government\u2019s attorney, \u201cWould you treat The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal this way? Do you think the print media considers themselves \u2018partners\u2019 with government? I can\u2019t imagine the federal government doing that to them.\u201d <\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-2-long d-flex justify-content-center\" style=\"margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center; \" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-848997252\">\n<div id=\"div-gpt-ad-1379703300879-0\" class=\"mb-30\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-5d4970ba3fa9a3930fb83d6086c58c94 fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-2\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-5d4970ba3fa9a3930fb83d6086c58c94\"><\/div>\n<p>The government\u2019s attorney had to admit, \u201cThe anger is unusual\u201d \u2014 referring to White House official Rob Flaherty literally <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/23\/23A243\/280017\/20230920145521680_2023-09-20%20-%20Murthy%20v.%20Missouri%20-%20Opposition%20to%20Stay%20Application%20-%20FINAL.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">cursing<\/a> at a Facebook executive and berating him for not taking action quickly enough to comply with the government\u2019s censorship demands.<\/p>\n<p>Justice Brett Kavanaugh followed up, asking, \u201cOn the anger point, do you think federal government officials regularly call up journalists and berate them?\u201d It\u2019s worth recalling that Kavanaugh worked as a White House attorney before he was appointed to the court, as did Justices John Roberts and Elena Kagan. No doubt there were times they dialed a journalist or editor to try to convince them to change a story, clarify a factual assertion, or even hold or quash the publication of a piece. Kavanaugh admitted, \u201cIt\u2019s not unusual for the government to <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/former-harvard-law-professor-government-will-cherry-pick-trump-affidavit-redactions\/\" title=\"Former Harvard Law Professor: Government Will \u2018Cherry-Pick\u2019 Trump Affidavit Redactions\">claim national security<\/a> or wartime necessity to suppress a story.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps colorful language is sometimes used in these conversations, as Kavanaugh himself hinted. Kagan concurred: \u201cLike Justice Kavanaugh, I have had some experience encouraging the press to suppress its own speech. \u2026 This happens literally thousands of times a day in the federal government.\u201d With a wink to the other former executive branch attorneys on the bench, Roberts quipped, \u201cI have no experience coercing anyone,\u201d which generated a rare chuckle from the bench and audience.<\/p>\n<p>This analogy to government interactions with print media, however, does not hold in the case of the government\u2019s relationship with social media<em>. <\/em>There are several crucial differences that profoundly change the power dynamic of those interactions in ways directly relevant to our case. These differences facilitate, in Alito\u2019s words, the government treating the platforms like subordinates in ways that would be impossible with print media.<\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-d122db85ca3cf3086d7b7b21f0eaacf9 fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-6\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-d122db85ca3cf3086d7b7b21f0eaacf9\"><\/div>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Behind the Scenes<\/h2>\n<p>First, when a government official contacts a newspaper, he is talking directly to the journalist or editor \u2014 the person whose speech he is trying to alter or curtail. The writer or editor has the freedom to say, \u201cI see your point, so I\u2019ll hold my story for one week to allow the CIA time to get their spies out of Afghanistan.\u201d But the speaker also has the freedom to say, \u201cNice try, but I\u2019m not persuaded I got the facts wrong on this, so I\u2019m running the story.\u201d The publisher here has the power, and there is little the government can do to threaten that power.<\/p>\n<p>By contrast, with requests or demands for social media censorship, the government was never talking with the person whose speech was censored, but with a third party operating entirely behind the scenes. As my co-plaintiff, the eminent epidemiologist Dr. Martin Kulldorff, quipped, \u201cI would have been happy to get a call from a government official and hear about why I should take down a post or change my views on the scientific evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Power Dynamic<\/h2>\n<p>Additionally, there is little the government can do to destroy the business model and cripple The New York Times or Wall Street Journal, and the journalists and editors know this. If the government pushes too hard, it will also be front page news the next day: \u201cGovernment Trying to Bully The Post to Censor Our Breaking Story,\u201d with the lede, \u201cNaturally, we told them to go pound sand.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>But the power dynamic is entirely different with Facebook, Google, and X (formerly Twitter): The government <em>does<\/em> have a sword of Damocles to hang over the head of noncompliant social media companies if they refuse to censor \u2014 in fact, several swords, including the threat to remove Section 230 liability protections, which Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has accurately called an \u201cexistential threat\u201d to their business, or threats to break up their monopolies. As the record in our lawsuit shows, the government explicitly made just such threats, even publicly on several occasions, in direct connection to their censorship demands.<\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-c40cab92b628c084cd8c6e2bf3dcaedb fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-10\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-c40cab92b628c084cd8c6e2bf3dcaedb\"><\/div>\n<p>Furthermore, unlike the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/state-level-republicans-push-back-on-big-tech\/\" title=\"State-Level Republicans Push Back on Big Tech\">major tech companies<\/a>, newspapers or magazines do not have massive government contracts that might disappear if they refuse to comply. When the FBI or Department of Homeland Security calls Facebook or X with censorship demands, the corporate executives know that a weaponized agency has the power to launch frivolous but onerous investigations at any time. It thus becomes virtually impossible for social media companies to tell the government to take a hike \u2014 indeed, they may have a fiduciary duty to shareholders not to incur serious risks by resisting government pressure.<\/p>\n<p>The text of the First Amendment doesn\u2019t say the government shall not \u201cprevent\u201d or \u201cforbid\u201d free speech; it says the government shall not \u201cabridge\u201d free speech \u2014 i.e., shall not do anything to lesson a citizen\u2019s ability to speak or diminish one\u2019s potential reach. A sensible and clear injunction would simply state, \u201cGovernment shall not request that social media companies remove or suppress legal speech.\u201d <\/p>\n<p>But if the justices want to distinguish between persuasion and coercion in the injunction, they need to appreciate that <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/biden-admin-asks-scotus-to-review-red-states-social-media-laws\/\" title=\"Biden Administration seeks SCOTUS review of red states' social media laws.\">social media companies operate<\/a> in a very different relationship with government than traditional print media. These asymmetrical power dynamics create a relationship ripe for unconstitutional government coercion.<\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-b7beacd40c54c15e78f508a4fd75ee60 fdrlst__b89e9-after-post-content\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-b7beacd40c54c15e78f508a4fd75ee60\"><\/div>\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\">    \t\t\t\t\t   \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Last week, I joined my co-plaintiffs at the Supreme Court for oral arguments in our Murthy v. Missouri case. We challenge alleged federal censorship on social media. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in June, deciding on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals&#8217; fate &#8211; to uphold, modify, or strike it down<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2197,"featured_media":2208034,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/15870725062_b558db7484_k-e1711591722325.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[546],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2208033","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-federalist"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/15870725062_b558db7484_k-e1711591722325.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2208033","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\/2197"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2208033"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2208033\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2208034"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2208033"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2208033"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2208033"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}