1 Trending: Hollywood Is Still Trying To Corrupt J. R. R. Tolkien’s Work

2 Trending: Poll: Virginians Don’t Like Democrats’ Gerrymander Scam

3 Trending: New Document Shows Chief Judge Howell Privately Endorsed Jack Smith’s Get-Trump Lawfare

4 Trending: 47 Democrats Vote Against Voter ID After Claiming They’d Support It

With Missouri V. Biden Settled, It’s Time For Censorship Reparations

The resolution to the case in favor of those the government had censored represents a dramatic turnaround of potentially outsize impact.

Share Article on Facebook

Share Article on Twitter

Share Article on Truth Social

Share Article via Email

This week, in a major win for First Amendment rights, the Department of Justice settled a lawsuit, Murthy v. Missouri, originally brought against the Biden administration four years ago for censoring disfavored online speech at mass scale.

Under the consent decree, the surgeon general, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Agency (CISA) are prohibited from taking any “actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly … to threaten Social-Media Companies with some form of punishment (i.e., an adverse legal, regulatory, or economic government sanction) unless they remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech” for the next decade.

The deal also prohibits the triumvirate from “unilaterally direct[ing] or veto[ing] social media content moderation decisions” from Facebook, Instagram, X, LinkedIn, and YouTube.

The decree represents a victory, but not a total one. While preventing the government from speech policing, it only does so with respect to the plaintiffs. That is, technically, the pact’s protections only extend to a handful of individuals, and government officials and agencies representing Missouri and Louisiana, the state co-plaintiffs. In practice, the Trump administration may treat the public at large the same, and other courts may give weight to the settlement as precedential. But a future administration could interpret things far more narrowly, and garner rulings that cut against free speech rights. Either way, the prohibitions are timebound, only applying for 10 years.

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., who........

© The Federalist