Video: Global Warming Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit ...

Article: Global Warming Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit ...

Article: Global Warming Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit ...

Entry: Global Warming Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit ...

Video: Global Warming Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit ...

Free speech advocates are elated by the consent decree settling Missouri v. Biden. Proclaiming victory, the plaintiffs and First Amendment defenders lauded the outcome as an “historic” milestone (see here, here, and here).

Are they right to see it this way? At the risk of raining on the parade, I respectfully dissent from the conventional wisdom.

Missouri v. Biden (also known as Murthy v. Missouri) combined lawsuits filed by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri with claims of several leading health care professionals. The compelling and mostly unrefuted evidence showed that the Biden administration had implemented a broad-based federal enterprise to coerce and collude with social media companies to suppress and deplatform criticism of the administration.

The plaintiffs sought to enjoin numerous federal agencies from taking any steps to demand, urge, pressure, or otherwise induce any social media platform to censor or restrict access to content.

The evidence showed that at least 80 senior Biden administration officials participated in a concerted effort involving at least 11 federal agencies and offices, including the White House, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, Justice Department, State Department, Surgeon General, Census Bureau, FBI, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

Underscoring the left’s strange and newly formed view that the First Amendment somehow does not protect “misinformation,” “disinformation,” or........

© RealClearPolitics