Alito’s Scathing Dissent in Biden Censorship Controversy

Eric Thompson Show

In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Samuel Alito has denounced the Supreme Court’s decision to side with the Biden administration in a high-profile censorship case. The case, which has drawn significant attention due to its implications for free speech and governmental overreach, revolves around allegations that the administration engaged in unconstitutional censorship of online content.

On Wednesday the SCOTUS majority sided 6-3 with the Biden administration in Murthy v. Missouri, finding that two states and five individual plaintiffs lacked standing to seek an injunction against the government’s wide-ranging efforts to suppress speech online. The case concerned the federal government requesting social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter remove certain content related to COVID-19 and other hot-button issues; many of the posts that were censored were factual, and critics argued the Biden administration attempted to censor conservative viewpoints

Justice Alito’s dissent is a forceful critique of the majority opinion, arguing that the ruling undermines the fundamental principles of the First Amendment. “This decision,” Alito wrote, “is blatantly unconstitutional and sets a dangerous precedent for governmental control over speech.” His dissent highlights the concerns that many conservatives have regarding the increasing power of the federal government to regulate and suppress speech it deems problematic.

The case in question, known formally as Biden v. Online Speech, involved a lawsuit brought by several online content creators and conservative organizations. They alleged that the administration pressured social media companies to remove or restrict content that was critical of its policies, particularly on issues such as COVID-19 and election integrity. The plaintiffs argued that these actions constituted a violation of their First Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court found that the government’s actions did not amount to censorship but rather were part of legitimate efforts to combat misinformation and protect public health and safety. The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, stated that the administration’s communications with social media platforms were “within the bounds of permissible government speech” and did not constitute coercion.

However, Justice Alito’s dissent fiercely challenges this interpretation. He contends that the administration’s actions went beyond mere guidance or advisement and crossed into the realm of coercion and censorship. “The government cannot be allowed to use its influence to silence dissenting voices,” Alito wrote. “This decision opens the door to a new era of governmental overreach and suppression of free speech.”

Alito’s dissent also addresses the broader implications of the ruling. He warns that the decision could embolden future administrations to exert similar pressure on private companies, effectively outsourcing censorship to non-governmental entities. “If this ruling stands, it will be a green light for future administrations to circumvent constitutional protections by leveraging their influence over private actors,” he argued.

The case has sparked a heated debate among legal scholars, policymakers, and the public. Supporters of the ruling argue that the government has a responsibility to combat harmful misinformation, particularly in the context of public health crises. They contend that the administration’s actions were necessary to prevent the spread of dangerous falsehoods that could undermine public safety and trust.

Critics, however, view the ruling as a significant threat to free speech and a dangerous expansion of governmental power. They argue that the decision sets a troubling precedent that allows the government to bypass constitutional constraints by pressuring private companies to do its bidding. This concern is particularly pronounced among conservatives, who have long warned about the dangers of government overreach and the erosion of individual liberties.

Jonathan Turley breaks down the frustrating anti-free speech ruling in Murthy v. Missouri.

“The Government is engaging in censorship by surrogate… they have made a mockery of the limits of the 1st Amendment.” pic.twitter.com/K2eKnJtloF

— Media Research Center (@theMRC) June 26, 2024

“Their communications with Facebook were virtual demands,” he wrote, pointing to the White House’s many requests to remove “misinformation” related to COVID-19. “And Facebook’s quavering responses to those demands show that it felt a strong need to yield.”

The majority determined that plaintiffs failed “to link their past social-media restrictions to the [government’s] communications with the platforms” explaining that “the platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment.”

The case is likely to have far-reaching implications for the future of online speech and the role of the government in regulating content. As technology continues to evolve and the lines between public and private spheres blur, the questions raised by this case will remain at the forefront of legal and political debates.

Justice Alito’s dissent serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing tensions between government authority and individual freedoms. His warning about the dangers of governmental overreach echoes the concerns of many who fear that the ruling could pave the way for increased censorship and control over speech. As the nation grapples with these complex issues, the debate over the balance between free speech and governmental responsibility is sure to continue.

In the aftermath of the decision, it remains to be seen how the ruling will be implemented and what impact it will have on the landscape of online discourse. For now, Justice Alito’s blistering dissent stands as a powerful statement against what he views as a direct assault on the constitutional protections of free speech.