Supreme Court Social Media Case Is About Government Control

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon issue a ruling in the contentious social media censorship case of Murthy v. Missouri. Some argue that the nine justices will determine the extent to which the federal government may “persuade not coerce” these platforms to shut down “disinformation.”

That practice is bad enough, but the reality is far more insidious.

Washington wants nothing less than the authority to control the public discourse on any issue it deems necessary. This is a particularly troublesome stance that laid bare the naked power grab taken by the Biden White House during and since the pandemic.

Of course, the administration will argue that such measures are necessary due to national security or public health. But the scope of its actions is far wider than these interests.

All-powerful government officials would be granted the power to control discourse and conversations. Through this, they also pull the strings on personal interactions and relationships in a way that should chill everyone concerned with civil liberties.

Free speech as currently understood will cease to exist if the high court rules in favor of the federal government.

Washington panicked when it discovered its allies no longer controlled the flow of information during COVID-19. Elites previously counted on their liberal media partners to convey the official narrative to a compliant public.

But communications changed dramatically in the last two decades, and the voiceless suddenly found their audience through the internet and social media platforms.

This spawned an official backlash through pressuring social media companies to deplatform unapproved ideas. Now it is up to the Supreme Court to reverse this insidious trend.

But will it?

Stalwart court conservatives Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch appeared agreeable with state arguments before the bench last month against rampant government censorship. But the rest of the jurists appeared far less certain.

In fact, most appeared skeptical of arguments in favor of building a wall between Washington censor and social media platforms. This did not bode well for the future of free speech in the U.S.