The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in one of the most important cases of the semester, which has critical implications for the First Amendment right to free speech as society moves further into a world dependent on internet services.
The core of the argument is Murthy v. Missouri The Biden administration has sought to pressure or “chin” social media to censor a variety of views and public policy advocacy regarding the coronavirus pandemic that it deems objectionable.
The Biden administration naturally claimed it was only speaking to social media leaders to “inform and persuade,” but found that the letters included direct threats to the companies, while White House officials publicly threatened action if the targeted groups were affected. New “Legal and Regulatory Measures.” failed to satisfy its desires.
These revelations only confirm widespread suspicions that the left-leaning administrative state, favored and further empowered by the Biden administration, seeks to use its vast power to silence the speech of Americans who do not share its preferred narrative or big government goals.
The Supreme Court must now determine whether the White House pressure campaign crossed the line into unconstitutional intimidation and censorship, even without formal government prosecution or enforcement. Under applicable Supreme Court precedent, the Biden administration’s “informal censorship may be sufficient to inhibit the circulation of publications warranting injunctive relief,” even if the targeted group is “free” to ignore its threats because “people do not readily disregard officials.” A thinly veiled threat. ”
Strengthening government censorship of “net neutrality”
The case is particularly important as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) attempts to revive the infamous Title II “net neutrality” regulations, which designated internet service as a “public utility” under Great Depression-era regulations targeting outdated copper , subject to federal micromanagement. Cable telephone service.
What problems might arise from putting one of America’s most dynamic economic sectors under greater control of the federal bureaucracy?
In fact, the idea was briefly implemented toward the end of the Obama administration, and the results were immediate and devastating: For the first time in history, outside of a recession, private broadband investment fell. After the Trump administration repealed Title II rules and reinstated long-standing “light-touch” regulations on Internet services, Internet investment resumed and Internet performance accelerated, exceeding all expectations even during the COVID-19 pandemic. This week, the Federal Communications Commission announced it would vote later this month to reinstate Obama-era “net neutrality” rules.
Unfortunately, many Supreme Court observers believe the justice’s conduct during oral arguments Murthy Last week showed that courts may be unwilling to comprehensively condemn and correct the Biden administration’s violations of First Amendment free speech rights. This makes it even more important for Americans to recognize how Title 2 “net neutrality” will provide the Biden administration with new and powerful tools to exert political control over the Internet.
As mentioned above, reimposing these “net neutrality” regulations on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) would allow the federal government to dictate the types of services provided and even the prices that can be charged. This, in turn, would give federal bureaucrats the power to punish ISPs that don’t toe the government line (as compared to other ISPs that are more compliant).
The Biden administration claims it will never use Title II’s “net neutrality” powers to set prices. However, as our Center for Personal Freedoms recently highlighted, rate regulation is exactly what the Biden Commerce Department seeks to implement in the 2021 Infrastructure Bill by enacting a broadband expansion plan, even though the statute expressly prohibits doing so, and despite an oath to the Commerce Department Officials testified before the Senate that the same decision would not be made.
Focus on what the Biden administration does, not what it says, even in sworn Senate testimony.
Enhancing “Digital Equity”
In yet another example of gross regulatory misconduct, the FCC continues to pursue unworkable and legally questionable racial discrimination rules under the guise of “digital fairness,” treating any unequal outcome as evidence of intentional discrimination. The FCC is once again backing away from any effort to use its powers to enforce its divisive agenda, but it is also simply asking broadcasters to provide government reports on the racial makeup of their workforces.
Again, focus on what they do, not what they say.
Taken together, all this reveals how the Biden administration is seeking to create a political environment in which the speech of those who disagree politically with the administration is suppressed or censored, even if it is through the private sector implemented by a third party.
It’s clear what the Biden administration wants. The question is why Americans would allow their growing administrative state to have vast new powers like Title 2 “Net Neutrality” to achieve this goal.