Could federal censorship become the biggest legacy of the pandemic?

Could a federal mandate to censor become the most surprising outcome of the COVID-19 pandemic?

This concerning possibility emerged from a Supreme Court hearing where certain justices appeared to view the First Amendment as a tool for mass control.

In 1919, a Supreme Court ruling indirectly permitted continuous restrictions on free speech by likening criticizing conscription to falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater.

However, this dictum was rejected by the court in 1969.

Will the current court open the doors to a new wave of censors by declaring, “There is no right to express disbelief during a pandemic”?

The justices engaged in a two-hour discussion on the Murthy v. Missouri case, which involved individuals who faced censorship on social media due to federal interference.

Judge Terry Doughty delivered a detailed ruling on July 4, highlighting federal manipulation and coercion of social media companies, possibly constituting “the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.”

Two months later, a federal appeals court upheld part of an injunction imposed by Doughty, preventing federal officials from pressuring social media companies to remove content containing protected free speech. 

Strikingly, the strong federal tactics described in lower court rulings disappeared when the case reached the Supreme Court.

While the lower courts upheld traditional American values, the justices seemed to overlook the threats and coercive actions taken by federal officials.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson reflected the sentiments of the Washington establishment by expressing concern that the First Amendment could hinder the government during crucial times.

There is an assumption in Washington that the First Amendment is outdated and that Americans need constant intervention from federal officials.

Jackson warned about the dangers of online challenges that could result in harm to American teenagers if not censored.

She advocated for preemptive federal censorship of online media to prevent potential risks.

The discussion at the Supreme Court focused on the hazards of disinformation and misinformation as defined by the government.

There was no acknowledgment that government censorship played a role in some of the mishaps during the COVID pandemic.

Some justices seemed influenced by recent articles in The Washington Post and New York Times on the dangers of disinformation, which could possibly be written by stringent censors.

A recent New York Times article revised history to justify federal suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 election.

The article lauded this suppression as a positive example of federal censorship.

Furthermore, the Times quoted a statement by Jen Easterly from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency endorsing federal intervention to combat misinformation and disinformation.

These actions raise concerns about the extent of federal influence on Americans’ thoughts and perceptions.

If the Supreme Court does not uphold the First Amendment, there could be significant implications for the 2024 presidential election.

In addition to the Hunter laptop story suppression, federal agencies interfered with the 2020 election by censoring comments questioning the integrity of mail-in ballots and election procedures, mainly targeting conservative speech.

Lower court injunctions aimed to prevent federal agencies from suppressing online comments on elections, but the Supreme Court suspended these injunctions for further consideration.

If the court fails to protect free speech, it might contribute to another censorship wave during national elections.

A few years ago, The Post ridiculed Biden’s Ministry of Truth, but the question now is whether the Supreme Court will defend the First Amendment.

If censorship becomes the norm, will the defense of freedom be lost?

James Bovard’s latest book is “Last Rights: The Death of American Liberty.”