Free speech is in trouble on both sides of the Atlantic
In June, the US Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s decision that barred the US government and its agencies from coordinating with social media to censor and suppress views that don’t follow the government’s narrative.
But free speech is not only in trouble in America. As David Thunder points out, free speech is in trouble on both sides of the Atlantic.
In the UK, Kier Starmer’s government is using recent civil unrest as an excuse to prosecute people for social media posts. In Ireland, the government is adamant it will strengthen its “hate speech” legislation. And in the EU, the Internal Market Commissioner suggested an interview between Elon Musk and Donald Trump might fall foul of Europe’s Digital Services Act.
Free Speech in Trouble on Both Sides of the Atlantic
By David Thunder, 24 August 2024
It’s been a troubling summer, on both sides of the Atlantic, for those of us who care about free speech.
On 26 June, the US Supreme Court vacated a lower court judgment in Murthy v. Missouri[1] that barred officials from the White House, CDC, FBI, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (“CISA”), and the Surgeon General’s office from encouraging social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech.
Justice Samuel Alito, in a dissenting opinion that was joined by two other justices, highlighted the history of State-sponsored censorship unveiled in the case, and the stark implications of the majority ruling:
For months in 2021 and 2022, a coterie of officials at the highest levels of the Federal Government continuously harried and implicitly threatened Facebook with potentially crippling consequences if it did not comply with their wishes about the suppression of certain covid-19-related speech … The Court … permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think.
Supreme Court Of The United States: Murthy, Surgeon General, et al. V. Missouri et al, Justice Alito dissenting opinion, 26 June 2024, Pg. 38
If we cross the Atlantic to America’s traditional allies, Ireland and Britain, things are far from rosy. The Irish government is adamant that it has not given up on its ambition to “strengthen” Ireland’s hate speech legislation, in spite of the fact that the Hate Offences Bill held up in the Senate (which I reported on in May 2023) proved extremely controversial due to some extremely draconian elements within it, including the right of officials to order the arrest of a private citizen for unpublished material that could “incite hatred” if published.
The British government has been using the UK anti-immigration riots, sparked by the Southport murder of children by the 17-year-old son of a Rwandan couple, as a pretext for prosecuting citizens for social media posts they believe could stir up “hatred” toward immigrants, or foment further rioting.
The fact that the line between incitement to “hatred” and legitimate political discourse is impossible to draw in an impartial and legally precise way is, of course, of no concern to prosecutors and politicians leading the UK into a censorious dystopia. Furthermore, the narrative that the anti-immigrant protests across the UK are just the handiwork of “far right” elements conveniently ignores the fact that there is huge public discontent with the UK’s immigration policies, as I explain in a recent post.
As if all of this was not enough, the EU Internal Market Commissioner, Thierry Breton, made an extraordinary intervention concerning a planned Twitter/X interview between X CEO Elon Musk and presidential candidate Donald Trump, suggesting that the interview might fall foul of Europe’s Digital Services Act.[2]
Although the EU Commission subsequently distanced themselves from Breton’s remarks, this intervention was a clear demonstration (in case we needed it) that the vague language of the Digital Services Act, with its allusion to the need to mitigate the risks of “disinformation,” “hate speech,” and threats to “civic discourse” and “public security,” was bound to be interpreted in an ideologically and politically partisan manner, as I explain in THIS post.
About the Author
David Thunder is an Irish political philosopher based at the University of Navarra with a passion for freedom and self-government. He publishes articles on his website HERE and articles and videos on his Substack page, ‘The Freedom Blog’, which you can subscribe to and follow HERE.
Note:
[1] In May 2022, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration and its agencies, including the Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, for coordinating with social media companies to suppress free speech and censor conservative views on issues such as covid-19, election integrity and vaccine policies.
The case went through the Western District of Louisiana and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The district court granted a preliminary injunction against several Biden administration officials and agencies, prohibiting them from contacting social media services to request the blocking of material, except for cases involving illegal activity.
In June, the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) reversed the district court’s ruling stating that the states lacked standing to bring the lawsuit. The Court found that the states failed to demonstrate a concrete and particularised injury, as they did not show that they or their citizens were directly affected by the alleged government pressure on social media companies.
The ruling has significant implications for future lawsuits alleging government censorship or viewpoint discrimination.
