WASHINGTON—Republican state attorneys general who brought a major free speech case against the Biden administration argued before the Supreme Court on March 18 said they were “cautiously optimistic” about how the Court will decide.
The attorneys general of Missouri and Lousiana, parties to the case of Murthy v. Missouri, argued that the Biden administration violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media companies to remove content related to COVID-19 and the 2020 election that officials claimed was misinformation.
Lawyers for the government, however, contended White House officials’ interactions with social media platforms were merely persuasive, and did not cross the line of “coercion” prohibited under the Constitution.
After the hearing, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Merrill told The Epoch Times outside the Supreme Court that it was concerning that the government had suppressed true speech, but said she was “cautiously optimistic” about the outcome of the case.
This case is one where the Supreme Court must decide if the federal government has a “compelling interest” in content restriction on social media platforms, she said.
When asked how important she felt the case was in the field of First Amendment cases, the state attorney general said she believed it was “hugely important.”
“We are engaging in a lot of conversations now about how modern technology adapts to tried and true principles of liberty and justice and freedom that protect us and have protected us since the Constitution was ratified,” Ms. Merrill said.
“I am cautiously optimistic that we will have a majority of the Court that lands where I wholeheartedly believe they should land, and that is in favor of protecting speech.
“And that’s some of the concerns that were laid out here with regard to where the line is drawn from encouragement to coercion, that there is a way to sort of determine that that’s what judges do every day … and it will be a fact-based inquiry.”
Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, one of the respondents in the case alongside the attorney generals, told The Epoch Times: “Clearly, several of the justices grasp what is at stake, they review the evidentiary record carefully, and I’m optimistic that they will do the right thing.”
Dr. Kheriaty went on to note that while he believes the social platforms—at the behest of the government—censored truthful speech, he also stated that “we need not make the case that the speech that was censored was truthful in order to win the legal argument.
“The reason for that is that the government has no role in deciding what is and what is not truthful speech and policing and forcing that speech to be removed from the public square.
“The government’s only job is to draw the line between legal and illegal speech, illegal speech being very narrowly defined by the courts, jurisprudence.”
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said, following his arguments, that he was “encouraged” by what he heard and is hopeful that “justice will be served in our First Amendment right to free speech will be vindicated.
“I think the justices appropriately recognized the level of government activity here and then it was coercive in nature,” the state attorney general went on.
Mr. Bailey also noted that Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out the idea that in some cases, the tech companies in question are blurring the lines between private action and public enforcement.
This means, according to Bailey’s assessment, that “social media companies are outsourcing their censorship regime to the federal government; there is no line between a private actor and a state actor.”
When questioned about the point that his side of the case believed that the content censored was true, and that argument was not brought up, Mr. Bailey said: “This has never been about truth; it’s always been about power.
“But the distinction between truth and untruth really exemplifies why the federal government is not in the truth-determining business. If they don’t think something is true, then their authority is to speak out against what they believe is untrue, not to censor speech.
Mary Holland, the President and General Counsel for the Children’s Health Defense, which is chaired by presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, whose social media posts were central to the case in question, also spoke on the arguments.
According to Ms. Holland, “If the justices decide unwisely, what we wrote in our brief is we are living in a brave new world … We already have a massive censorship complex, and that will get bigger and it will get more entrenched.”
The attorney asserted that her group was targeted by social media even before COVID-19 pandemic information was targeted, and the current case is a continuation of silencing of differing opinions.
“It’s incredibly disappointing to me as a liberal that the classical organizations that defended free speech like the ACLU is not involved in this case,” Ms. Holland told The Epoch Times.
“They are not standing up for free speech in today’s world.”
When asked what her opinions were on the championing of the pharmaceutical industry by those with more progressive ideologies, Ms. Holland said, “My colleague told me that 70 percent of Democrats favor censorship today.
“I can’t fathom that. You know, it used to be that the Left, so-called, was skeptical of big, big, big business. And now they’re embracing emergency use authorization, medical products that have the potential to cause severe harm. I’m flabbergasted.”
At another point in her interview, Ms. Holland shared her disappointment with the liberal movement, saying: “Historically, it was liberals who stood up for free speech.”
Journalist Jim Hoft, who is listed as a party in the case, said he believes that the “liberal judges” were attempting to “shape the narrative” on the case, but said he also saw some positive signals from the bench as well.
The journalist also brought up his opinion that the government “knew” some of the content they requested be taken down was accurate and that the government was “lying” about why some content should be censored.
Mr. Hoft also asserted that he believes this is a “very pivotal case,” and if the government is allowed to “get away” with the censorship experienced by the parties in this suit, “it’s only going to get worse.”
“This has to be where they put a stop to this,” Mr. Hoft told The Epoch Times.
“The government shouldn’t be doing this, especially when they’re wrong, and pushing their own opinion, silencing dissenting voices. Of course, it’s against the Constitution. It’s a no-brainer.”
