On March 18, the U.S. Supreme Court will delve into the heart of a pivotal First Amendment case, now known as Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden). This case poses a fundamental question: Can the government employ non-government entities to stifle the free speech of “millions” of Americans under the guise of combating “misinformation”?
The plaintiffs, comprising epidemiologists, consumer advocates, academics, media operators, and the states of Louisiana and Missouri, argue that the White House, along with several federal agencies including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Surgeon General, and the FBI, engaged in censorship by targeting and suppressing conservative-leaning viewpoints. These viewpoints ranged from questioning the origins of COVID-19 to scrutinizing the efficacy of masks and vaccines, as well as discussing the Hunter Biden laptop story.
The act of publicly questioning the Biden administration’s pandemic policies seemed to be intolerable to government officials, prompting them to enlist social media companies to silence dissenting voices by de-platforming individuals or removing online content altogether.
However, the diversity of professions represented among the plaintiffs underscores the importance of robust debate on matters of public concern, particularly when the public demands transparency and accountability from their elected leaders.
The government’s censorship not only infringes upon individual freedoms but also undermines democratic governance—a cornerstone issue that the Biden administration claims to champion in the face of existential threats. The consequences of this censorship are glaring, especially in the realm of public health, where American students have suffered significant learning setbacks due to prolonged remote learning.
Moreover, essential workers across the country, including nurses, doctors, police officers, and firefighters, faced termination or suspension for refusing vaccines, based on the flawed premise that vaccines prevented transmission. Many of these individuals have yet to be reinstated, despite the lifting of mandates.
When legitimate concerns are silenced, the policymaking process becomes susceptible to groupthink and undue influence from special interest groups, potentially resulting in draconian measures.
As Benjamin Franklin argued in “Apology for Printers,” both sides of an argument should have equal opportunity to be heard, as truth ultimately prevails in fair debate.
The Yankee Institute, along with Advancing American Freedom (AAF), has filed an Amicus Brief challenging this unconstitutional government intervention. J. Marc Wheat, General Counsel for AAF, emphasized that while the Constitution safeguards freedom of speech from government infringement, the Biden administration attempted to bypass the First Amendment by leveraging private entities as speech regulators.
The foundation of America rests on restraining government power and safeguarding individual rights. Free speech is indispensable to a democratic republic, even when it encompasses voices we may disagree with.
The Biden administration’s alleged disregard for the law, manifested in attempts to suppress free speech, has cast a chilling effect on Americans’ confidence and ability to engage in public discourse.
It is imperative that America refuses to allow the government to erode our cherished First Amendment rights by either acting as speech police or coercing others to do so on their behalf.
