Free Speech

Defunding NPR and PBS and all government-sponsored media isn’t just about saving taxpayers money, and it’s certainly not about placating Elon Musk.

What stood out above all else was the way free speech on X worked to ferret out the real story, while actually driving forward the mainstream press to correct its errors and get the story right.

The majority opinion here has found a way to codify this new form of censorship that threatens the whole idea of free speech itself. 

The case offers direct parallels to the censorship of Covid-related information. The Biden White House repeatedly worked through third parties – including Meta, Twitter, and Google – to censor disfavored information.

Mr. Biden needs to demonstrate the same moral clarity he demanded from his predecessor.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in Murthy v. Missouri concerning whether the government can force or nudge private companies to censor users on behalf of regime priorities.

The case against the government here is that it cannot do through third parties such as social media platforms what it is forbidden from doing directly by virtue of the First Amendment. The case in question is popularly known as Missouri v. Biden, and there is much at stake with its results.

Were I not invited to speak in defense of Israel, none of these issues would have been raised.

Leftists who have been on the forefront in denying free speech rights to those deemed politically incorrect have now begun to champion the First Amendment in defense of those who advocate the killing of Jews.

The First Amendment gives anti-Israel protesters the right to be immoral.  It gives them the right to lie and to reflect antisemitic bigotry. The First Amendment, though, also gives us the right, indeed the responsibility, to call out this immorality, mendacity, and double standard.

The decision reaffirmed what the Supreme Court called the “bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment” in 1989: “that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

The White House, the FBI, and the CDC violated the First Amendment by encouraging and coercing social media companies to suppress free speech. 

The moral argument for defunding the CBC is the principle that people should not be forced to fund things they disagree with.

Crushing freedom of speech is an assault on the mind, and thus on life itself.

What people used to say about the CCP role in the management of TikTok applies fully in the US today with all the main tech companies.

Those who support a culture of reason should be rooting for Elon Musk’s Twitter to succeed.

Facebook’s vice president has admitted fact-checkers are not necessarily objective, and the company even acknowledged recently in a lawsuit that fact-check tags are “opinion,” not factual assertions.

At issue is whether and to what extent the government itself has had a hand in encouraging tech companies to squelch speech. If so, this is unconstitutional.

Forcing companies to allow content is the flip side of prohibiting them from expressing certain ideas. These are the two side of the censorship coin.

Social media companies are not a threat to free speech. Governments that do not respect property rights are.

Many will argue that Twitter and other tech companies censored Mr. Senger, Mr. Changizi, and Mr. Kotzin of their own volition, and as they are private actors, the First Amendment is inapplicable. 

That argument should be rejected.