The Supreme Court’s recent decision to reject a challenge against the Biden administration’s alleged online censorship efforts has ignited a heated debate among legal experts and free speech advocates. The 6-3 ruling, which focused on the issue of standing, left many questioning the broader implications for freedom of speech in the digital age.
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley was among the critics of the Supreme Court’s decision. Speaking on “America’s Newsroom,” Turley expressed his frustration, stating that the court’s decision on standing was “too narrow” for cases addressing fundamental issues. “It’s very frustrating for the free speech community, because standing is often used to block meritorious claims. This is one of the most fundamental issues that we are facing,” Turley remarked.
The case in question involved Missouri, Louisiana, and five individual plaintiffs challenging the Biden administration’s efforts to influence social media companies to censor content. The high court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case forward, with Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissenting.
Turley argued that the court’s refusal to hear the case due to standing issues prevents crucial constitutional questions from being addressed. “Now I have to admit, I have always been something of a standing dove, I believe that the standing decisions are too narrow, because they do prevent the court from rendering a decision on such important constitutional questions, so this issue will have to wait for another day,” Turley said.
In July 2023, United States District Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued an injunction prohibiting Biden administration officials from pressuring social media companies to remove or suppress protected free speech. Doughty cited 25 instances where social media companies were either censored or pressured to censor by the Biden administration.
Among those targeted for censorship was Tucker Carlson, co-founder of the Daily Caller and Daily Caller News Foundation. An April 2021 email from White House Director of Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty to a Facebook employee demanded the company censor Carlson’s video about vaccines.
Turley highlighted the broader implications of the government’s actions, stating, “One of the things that many of us have been arguing for years is that the government is engaging in censorship by surrogate. I testified about this in Congress, that they have made a mockery of the limits of the First Amendment by doing indirectly what they are barred from doing directly, using academic and corporate allies to bar and cancel and blacklist critics on a variety of different subjects.”
The Supreme Court’s decision has left many in the free speech community disheartened, as they hoped for a ruling that would bolster protections for online speech. Turley emphasized the importance of addressing these issues, stating, “It’s going to be very frustrating for the free speech community. We’ve been trying to see if there would be a final decision to strengthen free speech.”
As the debate continues, the free speech community remains vigilant, awaiting future opportunities to challenge government actions that they believe infringe upon First Amendment rights. The case serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggle to balance government regulation and the protection of free speech in the digital age.