Sign up with Fox News to unlock exclusive content. Get free access to special articles and premium content with your account. Just enter a valid email address. By signing up, you agree to Fox News’ Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, including our Notice of Financial Incentive. Check your email for access instructions. Need help? Click here for assistance.
The Supreme Court is set to review a significant case on Monday. This case questions the Biden administration’s supposed collaboration with Big Tech to filter certain viewpoints. This matter could influence the conversation around the 2024 election. The nine justices will consider whether to maintain a temporary restriction. This restriction prevents the Biden administration from coordinating with social media platforms while the case’s details are examined in lower courts.
The lawsuit originates from Missouri and Louisiana state attorneys general. They claim that top government officials collaborated with major social media firms under the pretense of fighting misinformation. This collaboration allegedly led to the suppression of discussions on various topics, including Hunter Biden’s laptop, COVID-19 origins, and the effectiveness of face masks.
A court has suggested that the Biden administration may have infringed on free speech rights by working with Big Tech to limit election-related content. Missouri’s Attorney General, Andrew Bailey, emphasized the importance of upholding the injunction. He believes it’s crucial for safeguarding election integrity and our First Amendment right to free speech. Bailey pointed out that the suppressed speech was predominantly conservative. He argues that the injunction is vital for ensuring a transparent and unbiased exchange of ideas, preventing the government from favoring one viewpoint over another to influence the election outcome.
The Justice Department contends that the temporary injunction could cause “irreparable harm.” It might hinder the federal government’s ability to collaborate with social media companies on initiatives aimed at protecting the American people and our democratic processes. Bailey, however, insists that maintaining the injunction is essential for preserving a free and fair marketplace of ideas. He claims the federal government’s actions have primarily targeted conservative speech.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments challenging the Biden administration’s alleged coordination with Big Tech. This coordination is under scrutiny for potentially censoring specific messages. A U.S. District Court Judge, Terry A. Doughty, issued a temporary injunction last year. This injunction stopped White House and executive agency officials from meeting with tech companies to discuss content moderation. Doughty argued that past actions were likely violations of the First Amendment.
Doughty described the government’s role during the COVID-19 pandemic as akin to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’ He suggested that if the plaintiffs’ allegations are true, this case might represent the most significant attack on free speech in U.S. history. The injunction highlighted that the alleged censorship targeted conservative speech. However, Doughty noted that the issues raised by the case transcend party lines.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals later expanded the injunction’s scope. It now includes the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) within the Department of Homeland Security. The DOJ has appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn the injunction orders. They argue that the states have not demonstrated direct harm from the federal government’s actions.
The DOJ’s petition to the high court emphasizes the difference between persuasion and coercion. It argues that the President should be able to encourage actions that serve the public interest without being accused of coercion. The Supreme Court has temporarily lifted the injunction until a final decision is made. However, Bailey remains optimistic about the states’ chances of success.
The Supreme Court will convene at 10 a.m. on Monday to hear arguments in the case Murthy v. Missouri. This case could have significant implications for the relationship between the government, Big Tech, and free speech.