Table of Contents
FIREstatement on Murthy v. Missouri
Erik Cox Photography / Shutterstock.com
U.S. Supreme Court chamber in Washington, D.C.
Below is a statement from FIREChief Counsel Robert Corn-Revere on today's Supreme Court on Murthy v. Missouri:
The Supreme Court sidestepped deciding whether government pressure on social media platforms violates the First Amendment. But just a few weeks ago, it unanimously a core First Amendment principle: The government can’t censor by private coercion any more than it can by public legislation.
Despite reams of evidence documenting government pressure, the court held today these plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. FIREis concerned about what this means for future First Amendment plaintiffs. But the majority opinion notes courts have the power to stop government attempts to pressure social media platforms when proven. That’s important.
When government officials attempt to force platforms into censorship, Americans need to know. To secure transparency, Congress must take action. A little bit of sunlight would go a long way toward ending the censorship by coercion at issue here.
Read ÃÛÖÏãÌÒ's model legislation that would bring more transparency to government attempts to pressure social media companies into censoring users.
Recent Articles
FIRE’s award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali will not submit
Podcast
Ayaan Hirsi Ali grew up in a culture of conformity. She was beaten and mutilated. She was told who she must marry. Eventually, she rebelled. "You don't speak up at first," she told us. "First you leave and you find a place of safety. It's...
FIREstatement on congressional leaders smuggling unconstitutional Antisemitism Awareness Act into a must-pass defense bill
149 days and counting! Will the White House grant a posthumous pardon in the D.M. Bennett Case? — First Amendment News 447
