Supreme Court ruling allows Biden to regulate online speech

As the first presidential debate of 2024 approached, the Supreme Court paved the way for President Biden and his team to interfere in the election by suppressing disliked news and opinions.

Could the court’s decision not to intervene in federal censorship be a blow to American democracy?

The court’s ruling in the case of Murthy v. Missouri, which involved individuals censored on social media due to federal pressures on companies like Facebook, was a significant one.

Previous decisions by lower courts highlighted the various anti-free speech interventions by federal agencies and the White House, but the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, chose to give the benefit of the doubt to Washington’s influence over social media companies.

The majority opinion, penned by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, focused on the extensive evidence in the case and dismissed it on a technicality, rather than addressing the larger issue at hand.

Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent pointed out the clear injuries caused by federal interventions in social media, yet the outcome seemed predetermined.

The case was framed by Team Biden as a fight against misinformation, but it ultimately highlighted a broader issue of censorship and government control over speech.

The court’s decision lifted the injunction on government agencies interfering with social media content, sparking concerns about future abuse of power and control over public discourse.

As citizens worry about the implications of federal censorship on democratic processes, the court’s ruling leaves many questions unanswered and raises concerns about the future of free speech in America.

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