The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case with far-reaching consequences for online free speech and content moderation. The issue is social media’s kowtowing to the federal government’s efforts to combat “misinformation” about COVID-19, the government’s response to the pandemic, and the vaccines developed to fight it.
It is a freedom of speech issue: Did the government unconstitutionally constrain free speech by coercing and basically acting through social media companies?
When it comes to the First Amendment, “line drawing” is a fraught proposition. Social media companies are, after all, private concerns. If they want to censor someone for any reason, it’s hard to see how the court could disagree with that fundamental right.
But social media companies were being pressured by the United States government to stifle opinions in the name of squashing “misinformation.” As the Supreme Court will hear, much of the information that was eventually censored turned out to be not only true but helpful.
Here’s what those companies were faced with: “Nice social media company, ya got there. Be a shame if sumpin’ happened to it.”
As I see it, social media companies were, in fact, acting as quasi-governmental agents. They allowed the government some plausible deniability–they can say, “I didn’t do it, my little toady friend did!”
Yet the government put BIG pressure on the toadies to conform or be regulated out of business. And it wasn’t a hard sell, as the toadies also wanted to curtail free speech!