2 thoughts on “Matt Taibbi on Murthy v. Missouri and Covid “Misinformation””

  1. I have heard a lot of commentary on this case and surprisingly it doesn’t good .

    Professor Jonathan Turley has concerns about the fate of the First Amendment based in part on the oral argument in Murthy v. Missouri. He writes:

    “In Murthy v. Missouri, the court is considering a massive censorship system coordinated by federal agencies and social media companies. This effort was ramped up under President Joe Biden, who is arguably the most anti-free speech president since John Adams. Biden has accused companies of “killing people” by resisting demands to censor opposing views. Even though the administration was dead wrong on many pandemic-related issues, ranging from the origin of COVID-19 to the efficacy of masks, thousands were banned, throttled or blacklisted for pointing this out.

    Biden’s sole nominee on the court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, has long been an enigma on the issue of free speech. That is why these oral arguments had some alarming moments. While her two liberal colleagues suggested that some communications may not be coercive as opposed to persuasive, Jackson would have none of it. She believed that coercion is perfectly fine under the right circumstances, including during periods like a pandemic or other national emergencies claimed by the government. When dangerous information is spotted on social media sites in such periods, she seemed to insist, the government should feel free to “tell them to take it down.” “

    1. Jackson is a judicial activist, Fred. Big time. She is interpreting things the way she would like them to be, instead of how the Constitution directs.

      But the problem is that it seems, in this case and others, the Court as a whole tends to grant considerable deference to the Deep State and the administration. What they want, goes. I hope that does not happen with this case.

Comments are closed.