Missouri v. Biden: Preliminary Injunction Important Victory for First Amendment (so far)
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech (except for “misinformation”), or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
US Constitution First Amendment (as understood by the Biden administration)
“I may disapprove of what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it.”
Evelyn Beatrice Hill, 1906, The Friends of Voltaire
If you haven’t already, you are about to be overwhelmed by a storm of partisan commentary suggesting that the preliminary injunction handed down by District Court Judge Terry Doughty in the case of Missouru v. Biden is a “ruling that could curtail efforts to combat false and misleading narratives” online, and is “a victory for Republicans.” At issue is the legality of the effort of some members of the Biden administration (the government!) to censor the content of various social media on subjects such as vaccines, Covid treatments, Hunter Biden’s laptop, criticisms of the president, etc.
My personal struggle with this case is that, for the most part, I’m on the side of truth, which probably situates me in opposition to the same speech opposed by the government. But the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment, properly understood, has nothing to do with truth or falsehood. It has only to do with speech. And, as Nadine Strossen (former president of the American Civil Liberties Union) was fond of saying (my paraphrase), “the remedy for speech you don’t like is more speech, not censorship.”
I’ve only touched on this issue once before here, in my post “Matt Taibbi, An Example of Journalistic Integrity.” My particular admiration for him in that case was his clear-eyed focus on the First Amendment significance of his research and reporting on the government’s censorship of Twitter. Judge Doughty’s decision reinforces my own understanding of that significance. In the text of his 155-page decision Judge Doughty said this:
If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history. In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Governent, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech.
If you think that this is all partisan nonsense and Taibbi has gone “over to the dark side,” you would benefit — as I have — from the following discussion with one of the plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden: [Don]
RELATED:
