Brownstone Institute
Censorship on Trial at the Supreme Court
From the Brownstone Institute
Billed as one of the most consequential lawsuits of the last century, Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v Biden) is a legal battle that stands at the intersection of free speech protections and social media companies.
The plaintiffs, which include psychiatrist Aaron Kheriaty, and epidemiologists Martin Kulldorff and Jay Bhattacharya, cosignatories of the Great Barrington Declaration, allege the US government coerced social media companies to censor disfavoured viewpoints that were constitutionally protected by the First Amendment.
The US government denies coercing social media companies, arguing it was “friendly encouragement” in an effort to protect Americans from “misinformation” in a public health emergency.
The Constitution is clear – it forbids the US government from abridging free speech. But a private company such as a social media platform bears no such burden and is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment.
This case asks whether certain government officials impermissibly coerced social media companies to violate the First Amendment rights of social media users. The case now sits before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).
The Case So Far
The case has seen several twists and turns since it was originally filed in 2022.
Discovery allowed plaintiffs to document nearly 20,000 pages showing platforms like Twitter (now X), Facebook, YouTube, and Google stifled free speech by removing or downgrading stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop, the 2020 presidential election, and various Covid-19 policies.
The plaintiffs described it as an “unprecedented, sprawling federal censorship enterprise.”
On July 4, 2023, US District Court Terry Doughty granted a motion to restrict federal government officials from communicating with social media companies over content it believed to be misinformation.
Specifically, they were prohibited from meeting or contacting by phone, email, or text message or “engaging in any communication of any kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”
Doughty indicated there was “substantial evidence” that the US government violated the First Amendment by engaging in a widespread censorship campaign and that “if the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”
The Biden Administration appealed the decision in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the officials exercised a form of permissible government speech because they only pointed out content that violated the platforms’ policies to reduce the harms of online misinformation.
On September 8, 2023, the Fifth Circuit largely affirmed Judge Doughty’s order stating that US government officials were engaging “in a broad pressure campaign designed to coerce social-media companies into suppressing speakers, viewpoints, and content disfavored by the government.”
It was determined that the harms of such censorship radiated far beyond the plaintiffs in the case, essentially impacting every social-media user.
Circuit Judge Don Willett said the White House applied pressure to social media companies, using “fairly unsubtle strong-arming” and making “not-so-veiled threats” in the form of “mafiosi-style” tactics along the lines of “This is a really nice social media platform you’ve got there, would be a shame if something happened to it.”
The underlying threat, implied by Willett, is that the US government might increase its regulation over the platforms and enforce legal reforms to Section 230 which currently protects platforms from civil liability in US courts for content that appears on their platforms. Section 230 states:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
On October 3, 2023, a 74-page ruling ordered US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and dozens of officials from The White House, FBI, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to:
…take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech.
However, President Biden is no longer a named defendant because the Fifth Circuit did not uphold the order against him, hence the change in the name to Murthy v Missouri.
On October 20, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) granted Murthy’s application for stay (pause) of the injunction, until the court could review the case and issue a judgement.
In the Supreme Court
On March 18, 2024, Murthy v Missouri arrived at SCOTUS where Justices heard oral arguments by Brian Fletcher, Deputy Solicitor General for the US government and Benjamin Aguiñaga, Louisiana’s solicitor general for the plaintiffs.
Friendly, not Coercive?
Fletcher continued to argue that the government’s communications did not rise to the level of threats or coercion, but was simply encouraging social media platforms to exercise their misinformation policies (which would not be unconstitutional).
“If it stays on the persuasion side of the line — and all we’re talking about is government speech — then there’s no state action and there’s also no First Amendment problem,” said Fletcher. “I think it’s clear this is exhortation, not threat.”
Justice Samuel Alito however, seemed more convinced that the tirade of emails and crude language used by the White House officials to social media companies, mounted to coercion through their “constant pestering” of the platforms.
“It is treating Facebook and these other platforms like they’re subordinates,” said Alito. “Would you do that to the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal or the Associated Press or any other big newspaper or wire service?”
Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Elena Kagan referenced their own experience as government agents who had tried to persuade journalists to write stories differently, seeming dismissive about the argument that they were violating the Constitution in those circumstances.
“Like Justice Kavanaugh, I have had some experience encouraging press to suppress their own speech,” admitted Kagan. “This happens literally thousands of times a day in the federal government.”
Traceability
Some Justices questioned whether the plaintiffs could show they were directly “injured” by the censorship and if it was directly traceable to the government. In fact, Aguiñaga was asked to provide specific examples of where the plaintiffs were censored directly because of government coercion.
Justice Kagan said that platforms already moderate content, “irrespective of what the government wants, so how do you decide that it’s government action as opposed to platform action?”
Aguiñaga named Jill Hines, co-director of Health Freedom Louisiana, who was specifically mentioned in the government’s communications to be targeted for censorship.
Kheriaty, another plaintiff on the lawsuit, later commented that proving they were censored directly as a result of government action, rather than decisions by the platforms or their algorithms, would not be simple.
“Even with extensive discovery – which is hard to get in any event – finding the entire trail from a government directive to the take down of a specific YouTube video or Tweet would be virtually impossible,” wrote Kheriaty in a recent post.
Hamstringing the Government
Arguably, the most controversial moment was when the newest Justice of the court, Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned Aguiñaga over the impact of broadly restricting the government’s communications with social media platforms.
“My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods,” said Jackson. But critics immediately pointed out that the only purpose of the First Amendment is to hamstring the government. It states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In the courtroom, Jackson posed a hypothetical scenario of a “challenge” circulating on social media where teenagers were encouraged to “jump out of windows at increasing elevations.”
“Some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country,” said Jackson wondering if, in the context of a once-in-a-century pandemic, it might change the principle of the First Amendment.
“You seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information,” added Jackson.
Aguiñaga responded by saying that the US government had many options to amplify its messages without coercing private companies to censor content, including using its “bully pulpit” to make public statements.
Aguiñaga also said that people on social media were often unaware of the extent of the governments meddling to remove content. “The bulk of it is behind closed doors. That is what is so pernicious about it,” he said.
Whether SCOTUS votes to order a halt to the government’s widespread censorship enterprise remains to be seen. A ruling is expected in June 2024.
Republished from the author’s Substack
Author
From the Brownstone Institute
By
By late 2020, the media and public health establishment had two obsessions. One of their obsessions involved forcing the public to wear masks, even though the mountains of data and several studies had already confirmed that they don’t stop the transmission of respiratory viruses. The second obsession was forcing everyone to take Covid vaccines, regardless of their actual efficacy, risk of side effects, age or underlying health, or the vaccines’ rapidly waning efficacy.
Neither of those obsessions has abated, though even the most extreme, hardened Covid extremists have acknowledged that the vaccines were flawed, mandates were a mistake, and side effects should be acknowledged.
The media, unwilling to give up on the increased power, influence, and moral judgment it gained during the pandemic, has refused to accept that it effectively ended years ago.
So it’s no surprise that media outlets have noticed that, as we’ve seen every single summer since 2020, cases have increased, predominantly across the Western and Southern United States. Thankfully though, Los Angeles media, of course it had to be Los Angeles, has determined the culprit.
The Media Refuses to Accept Covid Reality
Turns out it’s not seasonality causing the increase, it’s outdated Covid vaccines and a lack of public masking, of course!
NBC Los Angeles “reported” that Covid cases in California and Los Angeles have “doubled” in the last month. This sounds horrifying and scary, doesn’t it? Yet it again, as is so often the case with Covid coverage, is misleading.
Let’s take a look at the current daily average of new cases in Los Angeles County:
Cases are so low they’re functionally indistinguishable from zero.
You can see why the media is scared, given how dramatic this surge appears to be compared to those in the previous four years. And thanks to NBC’s crack reporting and expert analysis, we know why this terrifying increase is happening. Spoiler alert: it’s all your fault that you haven’t controlled an uncontrollable respiratory virus with individual behavior that has no impact whatsoever on the spread of the coronavirus.
“People aren’t necessarily wearing masks; they’re not required to in certain places,” nurse practitioner Alice Benjamin, referenced as an expert by NBA LA said. “We’re traveling, we’re getting out for the summer. We also do have some reduced immunity. The vaccines will wane over time.”
Nowhere in the story is it mentioned that the massive jump in Covid cases in late 2021 and early 2022 happened immediately after LA County Public Health issued a press release celebrating the county for achieving 95+ percent masking rates at indoor businesses. No one seems willing or able to ask this nurse practitioner why she believes wearing masks would reduce this “surge,” if it failed so spectacularly in previous surges.
Endless Misinformation from ‘Experts’
She wasn’t done with the misinformation though. Benjamin warned that not enough Angelenos are getting the “updated” vaccine, which explains the summer increase.
“If you got it in October and later, that’s generally the updated vaccine,” Benjamin said. “If you got it prior to October, double check because if you did get the bivalent which has not been phased out, we recommend you do get an updated vaccine.”
And according to her, everyone should get it. Because the CDC said so.
“Per CDC recommendations, anyone 6 months or older should have at least one of the updated Covid vaccines,” Benjamin said.
Though, of course, no one on the crack NBC Los Angeles team thought to ask Benjamin why the “updated” October vaccine would help against the now common FLiRT variant when it emerged six months after the “updated” vaccine was released. Especially when the “study” process for booster doses is effectively nonexistent anyway. Pfizer and Moderna churn out a “targeted” dose that is supposed to protect against a variant that’s no longer circulating, never has to show any real-world benefit, and the regulatory agencies sign off on it, while the CDC recommends everyone get it.
Rinse, repeat.
Nor did anyone ask her what possible rationale there could be for forcing six-month-old babies to get vaccinated with a booster that has no studied efficacy against the currently circulating variant.
Her comments and the media reaction exemplify the problems with Covid discourse that started in 2020 and will apparently continue forever. A complete and purposeful ignorance of the facts, the data, and the evidence base. A willingness to advocate for the same sort of restrictions and interventions that have already failed. Ignorance of the booster process and endless appeals to public health authorities. Even though those authorities have made countless mistakes and refused to update their findings after being proven wrong.
The obvious question is: How does this type of absurdist discourse ever end? The answer, as we continue to see, is it doesn’t.
Republished from the author’s Substack
From the Brownstone Institute
The most powerful companies in the world have united against free speech, and they’ve deployed your tax dollars to fund their mission.
Last week, the House Judiciary Committee released a report on the little-known Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) and its pernicious promotion of censorship. GARM is a branch of the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA), a global association representing over 150 of the world’s biggest brands, including Adidas, British Petroleum, Nike, Mastercard, McDonald’s, Walmart, and Visa.
The WFA represents 90% of global advertising spending, accounting for almost $1 trillion per year. But instead of helping its clients reach the broadest market share possible, the WFA has appointed itself a supranational force for censorship.
Rob Rakowitz and the Mission to Supplant the First Amendment
Rob Rakowitz, the leader of the WFA, holds a particular disdain for free speech. He has derided the First Amendment and the “extreme global interpretation of the US Constitution,” which he dismissed as “literal law from 230 years ago (made by white men exclusively).”
Rakowitz led GARM’s effort to boycott advertising on Twitter in response to Elon Musk’s acquisition of the company. GARM bragged that it was “taking on Elon Musk” and driving the company’s advertising income “80% below revenue forecasts.”
Rakowitz also championed the unsuccessful effort to have Spotify deplatform Joe Rogan after he expressed skepticism for young, healthy men taking the Covid vaccine. Rakowitz attempted to intimidate Spotify executives by demanding to hold a meeting with them and a team that he said represented “P&G [Proctor and Gamble], Unilever, Mars,” and five advertising conglomerates. When a Spotify employee said he would meet with Rakowitz but not his censorsial consortium, Rakowitz forwarded the message to his partner, writing “this man needs a smack” for denying his demands.
The WFA extended its efforts to direct manipulation of the news market. Through a partnership with the taxpayer-funded Global Disinformation Index, GARM launched “exclusion lists,” which created de facto boycotts from advertising on “risky” sites, which it described as those that showed the “greatest level of disinformation risk.” These lists included the New York Post, RealClearPolitics, the Daily Wire, TheBlaze, Reason Magazine, and The Federalist. Left-wing outlets, such as the Huffington Post and Buzzfeed News, were placed on the list of “Least risky sites,” which facilitated increased advertising revenue.
GARM, the WFA, and Rakowitz is the latest scandal demonstrating the destruction of our liberties at the hands of consolidated power. Like the Trusted News Initiative or the Biden White House’s censorship efforts, the aim is to remove all sources of dissent to pave the way for the further corporatization of the oligarchy that increasingly replaces our republic.
The WFA’s Attack on Democracy
Just as Rakowitz could not hide his contempt for the First Amendment, WFA CEO Stephan Loerke demanded that his conglomerate overtake the democratic process.
In preparation for the Cannes Lions Festival (a gathering of billionaires and multinational corporations in the South of France every June), Loerke released a statement demanding companies “stay the course on DEI and sustainability.” According to Loerke, these policies must include responses to “climate change” and the promotion of “net zero” policies,” which have already wreaked havoc on Europeans’ quality of life.
Loerke wrote: “If we step back, who will push for progress on these vital areas?” Though he suggests the answer must be nobody, traditionally self-governing countries would charter their own courses in those “vital areas.” And in that paradigm, the corporation would be subordinate to the state.
But instead, the WFA has inverted that system. Through its clients, the trillion-dollar behemoth extracts money from governments and then deploys those funds to demand that we accept their reshaping of our culture. The parasite becomes the arbiter of “progress,” eroding the society responsible for its very existence.
As the WFA sought to punish any groups that criticized the Covid response, its client Abbott Laboratories received billions of dollars in federal funding to promote Covid tests in the US Army. As Loerke demands “net zero” policies that will unravel the Western way of life, WFA patrons like Dell, GE, IBM, and Microsoft receive billions in revenue from the US Security State.
The organization is fundamentally detached from traditional advertising, which aims to connect businesses with consumers to sell products or services; instead, it is a force for geopolitical and cultural manipulation.
Perhaps no WFA client better represents this phenomenon than AB InBev, the parent company to Bud Light, which destroyed billions of dollars in market value last year after selecting Dylan Mulvaney as the icon for its advertising campaign.
On its surface, the selection of Mulvaney as a spokesman appeared to be the result of an executive class detached from their clientele. But Rakowitz and the WFA reveal a deeper truth; they don’t misunderstand the public, they loathe them.
The organization is a force designed to punish them for their unfavorable, unapproved belief systems. It is an attack on the freedoms written into our Constitution as “literal law from 230 years ago,” as Rakowitz scoffed. The mission is to eviscerate “the right to receive information and ideas,” as our Supreme Court recognized in Stanley v. Georgia, and to make our republic subservient to its corporate oligarchy.
The stakes here are very high. The economic revolution of the 15th century and following was about a dramatic shift in decision-making, away from elites and toward the common people. With that came a wider distribution of property and rising wealth over many centuries, culminating in the late 19th century. Along with that came a shift in the focus of marketing, away from elites and toward everyone else.
The consolidation of advertising and its control by states strikes at the very heart of what free economies are supposed to be about. And yet, states that desire maximum control over the public mind must go there. They must gain full hegemony and that includes advertising. It should be stopped before it is too late to restore freedom over corporatism.
The Media Refuses to Accept Covid Reality
Hawley: Whistleblowers say Trump’s security detail was unprepared, inexperienced
Out soon? Biden faces growing calls to withdraw 2024 White House bid
Welcome to “Oil & Gas Silencing” Bill C-59: Where Trudeau’s Science Court Rules, Not Real People With Real Science
Ignore climate-obsessed propagandists and enjoy your summer
Jordan Peterson interviews Alberta Premier Danielle Smith
‘Really, Really Difficult’: Bureaucrats Worry Behind Closed Doors They’ll Be Sent Packing Under Trump
-
International19 hours agoSecret Service Repeatedly Rejected Offers To Use Drones At Deadly Trump Rally, Whistleblower Says
-
Alberta1 day ago‘Fireworks’ As Defence Opens Case In Coutts Two Trial
-
Business1 day agoEstonia’s solution to Canada’s stagnating economic growth
-
Bruce Dowbiggin12 hours agoGarbage In, Garbage Out: The Democrats 2024 Election Coup
-
COVID-191 day agoLeaked documents: German gov’t lied about shots preventing COVID, knew lockdowns did more harm than good
-
Business1 day agoFederal government seems committed to killing investment in Canada
-
International1 day agoSwitzerland’s new portable suicide ‘pod’ set to claim its first life ‘soon’
-
International19 hours agoHouse Passes Bipartisan Resolution Establishing Trump Assassination Attempt Task Force