SCOTUS Declines To Punish the Feds for 1A Violations

"They browbeat the platform for months and made it clear that if it did not do more to combat what they saw as misinformation, it might be called to account for its shortcomings," wrote Alito. "And as for the supposedly 'fleeting' nature of the numerous references to potential consequences, death threats can be very effective even if they are not delivered every day."

Advertisement

Indeed, in the summer of 2021, President Joe Biden accused Facebook of "killing people" because it had not removed all content that allegedly promoted vaccine hesitancy. Soon thereafter, the company fell in line.

While this case was before the Court, government agencies had dramatically scaled back their communications with social media platforms. It's possible that the Court could rule differently in the future, if civil liberties groups brought a case in which the standing issues could be overcome. But for now, the verdict in Murthy v. Missouri is a big, flashing green light that jawboning may resume. That's a discouraging development for free speech online.

Ed Morrissey

It's an encouraging signal and a set of incentives for authoritarians. The Constitution was written to restrain such people, a fact that Ketanji Brown Jackson earlier lamented to much ridicule, but perhaps was more lamented among the justices than we figured. 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on HotAir Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement