top of page

Free Speech: The Cornerstone of Liberty

On a personal note: Free speech is the fundamental right by which all other rights are upheld. Without it, a society can delve into a complete oligarchy, if it hasn't already.

Free speech is the bedrock of a democratic society, enabling individuals to express their thoughts, challenge authority, and engage in open discourse. This fundamental right underpins every other freedom we hold dear. Without it, the fabric of our society could unravel, leading us toward oligarchic control.

Historically, free speech has been the driving force behind significant social changes and movements. It allows for the exchange of ideas, fosters innovation, and holds those in power accountable. From the abolition of slavery to the civil rights movement, the power of free expression has catalyzed progress and justice.

Free speech, particularly on social media, suffered a significant setback today with the court's ruling in Murthy v. Missouri. The Missouri Attorney General had sued the Biden Administration over allegations that it had pressured big tech companies to censor, deplatform, or remove posts that contradicted the administration's viewpoints. The court's opinion favored the administration, raising concerns about the future of open discourse on social media platforms.

The Supreme Court's decision in Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden) centers on the government's involvement with social media companies in moderating content. The case was brought by Missouri's Attorney General, who claimed that the Biden administration had coerced social media platforms into censoring content, particularly posts that contradicted the administration's stance.

In June 2024, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that neither Missouri nor the other plaintiffs had the standing to seek a preliminary injunction. The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, stated that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial risk of injury that could be directly traced to the government's actions and remedied by the court. Therefore, the court reversed the previous decision by the Fifth Circuit, which had found that the government's interactions with social media companies had violated the First Amendment by coercing content moderation.

The dissent, authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, argued that the government’s actions represented a significant threat to free speech and that the plaintiffs had provided enough evidence of unconstitutional behavior to warrant standing.

The Supreme Court's decision in Murthy v. Missouri has significant implications for free speech, particularly in the context of social media and government influence. The ruling, which dismissed the case challenging government interference in social media censorship, has significant implications for our ability to speak freely online. This decision raises concerns about the balance of power between the government and private corporations in regulating speech.

The impact of this ruling extends beyond legal boundaries, affecting the very core of our democratic values. It highlights the need for vigilance and proactive measures to safeguard free speech in all forms. As citizens, it is our duty to ensure that this right remains protected for future generations.

Here are the key concerns and potential dangers of this decision:

Government Influence on Speech

Chilling Effect: The ruling could embolden government agencies to exert influence over social media platforms, leading to self-censorship by these companies to avoid conflict with regulatory authorities. This fear of government reprisal can lead to the suppression of legitimate discourse and dissenting opinions, essential components of a healthy democracy.

Precedent for Coercion: The decision may set a precedent where governmental suggestions or guidelines to social media companies are perceived as coercive, leading to the undue suppression of speech. Even without explicit directives, the implicit threat of regulatory consequences could drive platforms to preemptively censor content.

Erosion of Public Trust

Perception of Bias: Public trust in social media platforms and the government could erode if there is a widespread perception that content moderation is driven by political agendas. This distrust can fuel conspiracy theories and deepen societal divisions, as people may believe that only certain viewpoints are being silenced while others are promoted.

Transparency Issues: The ruling may discourage transparency regarding the relationship between government agencies and social media companies. If these interactions remain opaque, it becomes difficult for the public to hold either entity accountable for actions that may infringe upon free speech rights.

Legal and Ethical Implications

First Amendment Concerns: Critics argue that the government’s influence over content moderation, even if indirect, can constitute a violation of the First Amendment. This decision may be seen as undermining the principle that the government should not interfere with free speech, even on private platforms.

Ethical Dilemmas: The ethical responsibility of social media companies to moderate harmful content must be balanced against the risk of government overreach. The ruling complicates this balance, potentially leading to either excessive censorship or a laissez-faire approach that fails to address harmful misinformation.

Broader Social Impact

Impact on Dissent and Protest: Social media has been a crucial tool for grassroots movements and political dissent. If platforms become overly cautious in response to government pressure, it could stifle the ability of marginalized groups to organize, protest, and make their voices heard.

Information Landscape: The decision might exacerbate the polarization of the information landscape. If users feel their views are being unfairly targeted, they might migrate to alternative platforms that may not adhere to the same content moderation standards, potentially leading to echo chambers and the spread of unchecked misinformation.

This ruling underscores the complex balance between government influence and free speech, especially in the digital age. While the government argues its actions are to prevent misinformation, critics see it as a dangerous precedent for censorship.

Attorney General Andrew Bailey is not finished with protecting free speech writing on X,

"My office filed suit against dozens of officials in the federal government to stop the biggest violation of the First Amendment in our nation’s history. The record is clear: the deep state pressured and coerced social media companies to take down truthful speech simply because it was conservative. Today’s ruling does not dispute that. My rallying cry to disappointed Americans is this: Missouri is not done. We are going back to the district court to obtain more discovery in order to root out Joe Biden’s vast censorship enterprise once and for all."

What Can Americans Do to Protect Free Speech?

  1. Stay Informed and Educated: Understand your rights and share this knowledge.

  2. Advocate for Policy Change: Support legislation that protects free speech.

  3. Promote Open Dialogue: Encourage diverse opinions and challenge censorship.

  4. Use Technology Wisely: Support platforms that prioritize free speech and protect your online privacy.

  5. Engage in Civic Activities: Participate in protests and advocacy groups.

  6. Legal Action: Support or engage in legal challenges against restrictions on speech.

  7. Monitor and Report: Keep an eye on government and corporate actions that may infringe on free speech.

By taking these steps, we can help ensure that the fundamental right of free speech remains protected and vibrant.

42 views0 comments


bottom of page