The Media Research Center heavily touted the the case Murthy v. Missouri as the vehicle through which it and its fellow right-wingers would prohibit the government from correcting lies and misinformation online, which it dishonestly portrays as “censorship.” When the case was heard in front of the Supreme Court, the MRC loudly whined that other points of view were discussed. Catherine Salgado raged that one justice expose the flaws in the right-wing narrative in a March 19 post:
As the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for a landmark free speech case, one Democrat-appointed justice expressed concern that the First Amendment restricts government control of speech.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared to side with the Biden administration that nominated her to the U.S. Supreme Court when the court heard arguments for the landmark free speech case Murthy v. Missouri. She prioritized government censorship over cConstitutionally protected speech and whined that the First Amendment, as described by respondents’ representative Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga, is “hamstringing the federal government.” For Jackson, it seems, the government’s agenda and potentially biased narratives are more important than the Bill of Rights.
Jackson addressed Aguinaga, who was arguing on behalf of the original complaint brought by the Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general. “My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the federal government in significant ways in the most important time periods,” the Supreme Court justice outrageously complained.
Salgado did not explain why it was “censorship” to correct lies and misinformation; instead, she stuck to her script, parroting how “Jackson’s comments drew critiques and backlash from free speech advocates, who argued that the First Amendment was indeed aimed at protecting free speech from government control.”
Joseph Vazquez played the Soros bogeyman card in attacking another opinion he didn’t like in a post the same day:
Imagine a radical law organization financed by George Soros lurching so far to the left on the free speech issue that it ends up bastardizing the very philosophy of the liberal U.S. Supreme Court associate justice it’s named after. Enter the Brennan Center for Justice.
The Brennan Center — which has espoused insane ideas like abolishing the Electoral College because of its so-called “racist origins” and defunding the police — published a nutty take on the ongoing case Murthy v. Missouri, currently before the Supreme Court. The case involves the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana suing the Biden administration for colluding with Big Tech companies to censor free speech. “Supreme Court Case Could Be Disastrous for Detecting Election Misinformation,” read the Brennan Center’s headline, shilling for the government forces seeking to erect a dystopian speech control cabal with Silicon Valley. Tellingly, Soros funneled at least $4,800,000 into the Brennan Center’s coffers between 2016 and 2021 alone.
The Brennan Center panned the lawsuit seeking to halt the back-channel collusion between federal entities and Big Tech platforms as part of a “larger legal and political effort to silence those working to detect or counter election rumors and falsehoods.” [Emphasis added.] Yes, the Soros-funded organization attempted to make it seem like the federal government — not the American public — was the victim of censorship in this case; never mind how the Biden administration has already been repeatedly exposed for targeting Christians and conservatives who don’t toe the line on approved left-wing talking points.
Vazquez didn’t explain how it was “approved left-wing talking points” to note that, for instance, COVID vaccines are safe and effective despite the rantings of discredited anti-vaxxers. He then tried to play gotcha by bringing up a case in which the center opposed censorship — but that case involved censorship of books for “obscene, indecent or impure language,” not correcting lies and misinformation designed to sow mistrust in government and medicine.
Salgado continued to dishonesty portray lies and misinformation as “free speech” in a March 20 post:
An exchange between a U.S. Supreme Court justice and a U.S. Deputy Solicitor General unveiled the Biden administration’s utter disregard for free speech.
Justice Samuel Alito challenged U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher, who argued the federal government’s case during oral arguments for the free speech case Murthy v. Missouri on Monday. While Fletcher seemed to argue that a person’s access to his First Amendment rights is partially dependent on circumstances, the justice had a different view.
Alito accused the federal government of using “constant pestering” to coerce Facebook and other Big Tech platforms to censor content, noting that such behavior would be considered unacceptable if targeted at print media. Ultimately, Alito argued, “the federal government has got Section 230 and antitrust in its pocket,” so “these big clubs” can help it treat Facebook et al. “like they’re subordinates.”
Section 230 allows social media companies to be absolved from liability for what users post on their platforms. It can also be used, however, as a cudgel by government to pressure tech companies into censoring certain content.
Salgado went on to suggest that there is no objective definition of truth, that it’s merely about “what the government deemed accurate information”:
When Alito challenged Fletcher as to whether print media is “on the same team as the federal government, partners,” as social media appeared to be, the U.S. Deputy Solicitor General made a disturbing argument. “So potentially in the context of an effort to get Americans vaccinated during a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic,” he said. “There was a concern that Americans were getting their news about the vaccine from these platforms” and receiving “bad information.”
Fletcher argued that even the social media companies recognized their “responsibility” to provide what the government deemed accurate information, and insisted that government-media partnerships are not unusual or problematic, despite the Constitutional emphasis on a free press. He did not address the fact that social media is essentially the public town square now and even seemingly argued that government pressure to censor information and violate free speech rights is permissible in a health emergency.
If people are lying or deliberately spreading misinformation, it can be argued that they have forfeited their right to free speech. But the important thing to Salgado was that her employer is in on the narrative “The complaint filed for Murthy v. Missouri cited MRC Free Speech America’s unique and exclusive CensorTrack.org research.”
Salgado pushed her employer’s dishonest narrative even more in a March 21 post:
Even as the U.S. Supreme Court hears a landmark case challenging Big Tech-government censorship collusion, Biden’s henchmen are wasting no time stepping up their dystopian actions before the 2024 election.
The Court heard oral arguments in the Murthy v. Missouri free speech case this week, which details how federal government entities pressured social media platforms to suppress speech. But the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) cyber intelligence, and other intel agencies are undeterred. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Agency (NSA) are also among the agencies determined to interfere with this year’s election under the guise of cybersecurity, according to The Washington Times.
“U.S. intelligence agencies are turning to cybersecurity companies like never before for help protecting various forms of infrastructure,” The Times announced. For example, The Times quoted NSA Cybersecurity Collaboration Center’s Morgan Adamski. “We started with one partner about four years ago. As of today, we have over a thousand different partners that we talk to 24/7 through 800 collaboration platforms at any given time,” Adamski bragged at a CrowdStrike summit.
[…]The Deep State’s obsession with trying to infringe upon free speech online is very telling in light of the current Murthy litigation before the Supreme Court. Apparently, Biden’s administration isn’t waiting around for the Court to give them a favorable ruling. The complaint filed for Murthy v. Missouri cited MRC Free Speech America’s unique and exclusive CensorTrack.org research on how Big Tech censored to help Biden 646 times between March 2020 and 2022 alone.
Because taking a piece of the credit for this partisan lawsuit is the important thing here as far as Salgado is concerned. Let’s not pretend that the MRC actually cares about the “free speech” of anyone except its fellow ideologues.