Mainstream Media Paints a Biased and Narrow View of SCOTUS Hearing on Social Media Censorship

Hundreds of Free Speech Advocates Rally in Front of the Court.

The case Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden) was heard at the Supreme Court of the United States yesterday, where the question of government collusion with social media companies to censor content was placed squarely before the highest court in America. The case Kennedy v. Biden had recently won in a lower court. In that case, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Children’s Health Defense won an injunction against President Biden’s administration relating to the government censoring both parties on social media, but that win is now dependent upon the outcome of Murthy v. Missouri.

ABC and the Washington Post ran headlines saying that the Supreme Court was “likely to reject” the respondents’ claims in Murthy v. Missouri. 

The Associated Press stated the Supreme Court Justices were “likely to side with the Biden Administration.” NBC and others picked up that report. NBC News reported that SCOTUS “leans against limiting the Biden Administration" in the case. 

The New York Times showed less bias in its headline, stating SCOTUS was “wary” of limiting the government’s ability to participate in social media censorship operations.

FOX News reported that the US Supreme Court was “divided,” and the Washington Examiner reported that the high court was “split” on what to do about White House contact with social media companies.

However, Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey from Missouri appeared on Newsmax and completely rejected the headlines from ABC, NBC, Washington Post, and AP, stating that the “lame-stream media” painted a dire picture that was not at all true. Bailey, one of the lead attorneys for the respondents in the case, stated the points that the Justices debated in open court addressed only one of the three possible avenues for proving that government censorship had occurred. AG Bailey said he is hopeful that the conservative Justices will be siding with his argument ruling in favor of the respondents.

Who is really correct here?

I was in front of the SCOTUS steps during the case on behalf of Teachers for Choice attending the Rally to Reclaim Free Speech sponsored by Children’s Health Defense and nearly two dozen other organizations. When I spoke to attorneys and legal experts coming out of the court who support the lawsuit, they were not thrilled with what had just transpired in the court. They were worried that we may receive a ruling that is unfavorable to the 1st Amendment and free speech. 

However, it is unclear to me if SCOTUS will be able to rule entirely against free speech. It is possible that the justices will “split the baby,” meaning no one gets exactly what they want, but only partial victories.

It’s clear that Justices Sotomayor, Brown, and Kagan seem to be against the respondents. They want a ruling that protects the rights of the government to have mechanisms to moderate content on private social media platforms.

Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito indicated support of the respondents. They want a ruling that will limit the government’s ability to moderate content on private social media platforms.

Most importantly, it is unclear what the remaining three justices want – Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.

Both Kavanaugh and Barrett have worked within the White House for past administrations, and they said they are aware that the executive branch is constantly trying to persuade many platforms to change people’s minds and opinions. However, it is unclear where they see the line between persuasion (which is legal) and coercion (which is unconstitutional).

It is impossible to predict what the Supreme Court will do, but this seems to be the most accurate picture of where things stand and what we currently know in regards to Murthy v. Missouri.

More Info Available

Journalist Michael Shellenberger interviewed attorney and free speech expert Jeff Kosseff on the topic of censorship and the Murthy v. Missouri case. If you have an X account (formerly Twitter), you can listen to the interview for free on the platform or at Shellenberger’s Substack, PUBLIC.

This interview was published the day before the March 18 hearing, so keep in mind that Shellenberger and Kosseff’s views may have shifted somewhat. Nevertheless, it is still required listening for anyone who wants to understand what is the most important free speech case of our generation.

Shellenberger has coined the term Censorship Industrial Complex, to explain the massive censorship industry that has risen in America over the past decade. In an interview just last year, Shellenberger stated:

“It appears that actors within the US government weaponized the kinds of tactics that the CIA has used for "regime change" in nations around the world since World War II.”

The outcome of Murthy v. Missouri will be extremely important in determining whether the Biden administration and future governments can legally engage in such tactics.

Photo of Rally from THE NEW AMERICAN