Table of Contents
Â鶹´«Ã½IOS statement on Murthy v. Missouri
Erik Cox Photography / Shutterstock.com
U.S. Supreme Court chamber in Washington, D.C.
Below is a statement from Â鶹´«Ã½IOS Chief Counsel Robert Corn-Revere on today's Supreme Court on Murthy v. Missouri:
The Supreme Court sidestepped deciding whether government pressure on social media platforms violates the First Amendment. But just a few weeks ago, it unanimously a core First Amendment principle: The government can’t censor by private coercion any more than it can by public legislation.
Despite reams of evidence documenting government pressure, the court held today these plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. Â鶹´«Ã½IOS is concerned about what this means for future First Amendment plaintiffs. But the majority opinion notes courts have the power to stop government attempts to pressure social media platforms when proven. That’s important.
When government officials attempt to force platforms into censorship, Americans need to know. To secure transparency, Congress must take action. A little bit of sunlight would go a long way toward ending the censorship by coercion at issue here.
Read Â鶹´«Ã½IOS's model legislation that would bring more transparency to government attempts to pressure social media companies into censoring users.
Recent Articles
Get the latest free speech news and analysis from Â鶹´«Ã½IOS.
Â鶹´«Ã½IOS Reacts -- Where does Harvard go from here? With Larry Summers
Podcast
2025 has not been kind to Harvard. To date, the Trump administration , demanding violations of free speech, academic freedom, and institutional autonomy in return for restoring the funding. In response, Harvard , raising First Amendment claims. ...
Why Â鶹´«Ã½IOS is suing Secretary of State Rubio — and what our critics get wrong about noncitizens’ rights
