SCOTUS mocks concept of self-censorship in shocking decision

Supreme Court justices on Wednesday mocked common concept of self-censorship in majority opinion Murthy v. Missouriin which the nine-judge panel ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing.

In its 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court considered the constitutional question of government censorship of private Internet companies. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion that “to obtain prospective relief,” plaintiffs “must establish a substantial risk of future harm that is attributable to the government defendants and that can be remedied by injunctive relief against them.” The judge added, however, that the plaintiffs’ arguments for standing were unpersuasive.

“First, they argue that they are experiencing ‘continuing and present negative effects’ from their past restrictions because they must now self-censor on social media,” Barrett wrote. “But plaintiffs cannot gain standing simply by inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is certainly not imminent.”

“As we have explained,” Barrett continued, “Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they are likely to face a risk of future censorship attributable to the accused.”

Barrett argued that plaintiffs were already incentivized to self-censor by large companies’ pre-existing content moderation policies, so it is “difficult to see how” plaintiffs’ self-censorship “can be attributed” to defendants.

In other words, Judge Barrett’s decision is based in part on skepticism about the prevalence of self-censorship, let alone censorship brought about by government campaigns to suppress dissenting speech. What the plaintiffs have made clear throughout the case, however, is that the social media sites followed the direction of their content moderation policies. Since federal authorities engaged in a program of surrogate censorship.

Federalist editor Joy Pullmann reported last summer that White House officials, for example, “treated Internet monopolies like their subordinates.” Pullmann published an email exchange between White House digital director Rob Flaherty and Facebook in which Flaherty sent angry messages demanding to know why the company was not complying with the administration’s demands.

“Joe Biden even threatened to hold (Mark) Zuckerberg criminally responsible for not running Facebook the way Biden wanted,” Pullmann reported.

And if there is any doubt about self-censorship, just ask today’s students if they self-censor, whether inside or outside the classroom. In October, Samuel Abrams, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), reported on a survey conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) of more than 55,000 students across 254 establishments, which revealed “alarming” levels of self-censorship.

“Half of students, both men and women, report practicing self-censorship occasionally or more frequently,” Abrams wrote. “This phenomenon transcends the divides between private and public establishments and affects a majority of students, regardless of the type of establishment they attend. »

“One of the most insidious intentional effects of government censorship is self-censorship,” wrote Sean Davis, CEO of Federalist, in an article on X. “By punishing others for what they say and believe, Tyrannical governments terrorize the thoughts of their citizens by creating every incentive for them to remain silent. »

One of the most insidious effects of government censorship is self-censorship: by punishing others for what they say and believe, tyrannical governments terrorize their citizens’ own thoughts into silence.

But in his abominable… pic.twitter.com/u1NuMOLITy

-Sean Davis (@seanmdav) June 26, 2024

George Orwell wrote about how tyrants exploit censorship as a tool to cause self-censorship among the enslaved classes.

“The principal danger to freedom of thought and expression today is not direct interference by any official body,” he wrote. “If publishers and editors try to keep certain subjects out of the press, it is not for fear of legal action, but for fear of public opinion. »

But public opinion is being manipulated by U.S. government censorship – censorship perpetrated by private websites that serve as proxy moderators for authorities seeking to control the flow of information.

Write the dissenting opinion in Murthy v. Missouri On Wednesday, Justice Samuel Alito warned that Americans would eventually come to regret maintaining an unconstitutional censorship regime.

---