| Listen to our audio presentation: History of the US Supreme Court |
Overview
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Murthy v. Missouri, addressing the contentious issue of social media content moderation influenced by government actions. This ruling highlights the intricate balance between government intervention and the protection of free speech under the First Amendment.
Background
During the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 election season, social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube implemented stringent content moderation policies to curb misinformation. These actions were influenced by continuous communications from various federal agencies, including the White House, the Surgeon General’s Office, the CDC, the FBI, and the CISA, urging the platforms to address misinformation about the pandemic and the election.
Case Details
The plaintiffs, comprising two states (Missouri and Louisiana) and five individuals, alleged that the federal government coerced social media platforms to suppress their speech, thus violating the First Amendment. They sought an injunction to prevent future government pressure on these platforms.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Court, in a majority opinion written by Justice Barrett, reversed the Fifth Circuit’s ruling which had partially upheld the plaintiffs’ claims. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to seek injunctive relief. The decision emphasized several key points:
Lack of Traceability: The Court found insufficient evidence to directly link the plaintiffs’ past content moderation issues to specific government actions. While the platforms’ moderation policies were influenced by government communications, there was a lack of specific causation showing that the platforms’ decisions were directly coerced by the government.
Independent Actions of Platforms: The platforms had established content moderation policies independently before and after government interventions. The Court highlighted that platforms often made moderation decisions based on their guidelines and business judgments, not solely on government pressure.
Future Harm Speculation: The Court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial risk of future injury that could be traced to the government defendants. The cessation of intense government communication with the platforms further weakened the plaintiffs’ case for future harm.
Redressability Issue: Even if the government defendants were enjoined from pressuring the platforms, the platforms could still independently enforce their policies. Thus, an injunction would not necessarily redress the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.
Dissenting Opinion
Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, dissented. They argued that the evidence showed a clear pattern of government coercion influencing social media platforms to suppress certain viewpoints, particularly conservative ones. They expressed concerns about the implications of the ruling on future cases involving indirect government censorship.
Implications
The ruling underscores the complexities in establishing standing in cases involving indirect government actions influencing private entities. It also raises questions about the extent of government involvement in moderating public discourse on private platforms. The decision could make it more challenging for individuals to seek judicial relief for indirect censorship claims.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution
Text of the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Why It Was the First Amendment
The First Amendment was included as a cornerstone of the Bill of Rights to ensure the fundamental freedoms essential to a democratic society. The framers of the Constitution prioritized these freedoms—religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition—because they are integral to the functioning of a free and open society. These rights protect individuals’ ability to express ideas, seek truth, and hold the government accountable, which are necessary conditions for democracy to thrive.
The Bill of Rights was introduced in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties. The newly formed United States had just emerged from a revolution against a government perceived as tyrannical, and there was a widespread desire to prevent any similar future abuses. By placing these protections at the forefront, the framers sought to guarantee that the government could not easily infringe upon the essential rights of the people.
What the Authors Said About the First Amendment
James Madison: Known as the “Father of the Constitution” and a principal author of the Bill of Rights, Madison was a staunch advocate for individual liberties. In his speech introducing the Bill of Rights to the First Congress, Madison emphasized the need to secure civil liberties, stating that these amendments were “calculated to secure the personal rights of the people.” He believed that enumerating these rights would help prevent government overreach and protect individual freedoms.
Thomas Jefferson: Although Jefferson was in France during the drafting of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, his ideas greatly influenced their creation. Jefferson famously wrote to Madison in 1787 expressing the need for a Bill of Rights, including protections for religious freedom, freedom of the press, and trial by jury, which he viewed as “what the people are entitled to against every government on earth.” Jefferson’s advocacy for these fundamental rights was rooted in his belief in the importance of safeguarding individual liberty against potential governmental abuses.
George Mason: Another influential figure, Mason was the author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which served as a model for the Bill of Rights. He refused to sign the Constitution because it initially lacked a bill of rights. Mason’s declaration outlined many of the rights later included in the First Amendment, such as freedom of the press and religious tolerance. He argued that these rights were essential to prevent tyranny and protect the people’s liberty.
Alexander Hamilton: Although Hamilton initially opposed the Bill of Rights, believing that the Constitution already limited the government sufficiently, he eventually recognized the value of explicitly enumerating individual rights. In Federalist No. 84, he argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary because the Constitution itself was a bill of rights. However, he acknowledged that such protections could serve as important safeguards against government overreach.
In Conclusion
The First Amendment is foundational to American democracy, embodying the values of freedom and protection against tyranny that the framers sought to enshrine. By guaranteeing freedoms concerning religion, speech, the press, assembly, and petition, the amendment ensures that citizens can freely express their ideas, beliefs, and grievances, fostering an informed and engaged populace capable of self-governance. The framers’ discussions and writings highlight their intent to create a government that protects individual liberties, recognizing that these freedoms are essential for the health and longevity of the republic.
Resources
Supreme Court: (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2023
SCOTUS Clears the Way for Attorney General Bailey to Obtain More Evidence in Case Targeting Biden’s Censorship Regime
Reason.com: The Supreme Court’s Dangerous Standing Ruling in Murthy v. Missouri
Supreme Court ruling on social media content moderation (Document ID: file-pZeG2mwCK1tEP0aCC1O8f7Rl)