The MRC's Murthy Muddle, Part 1
The Media Research Center put its faith in the Murthy v. Missouri case at the Supreme Court to bolster its dishonest narrative that correcting online lies and misinformation is "censorship."
For years, the Media Research Center has been pushing the idea that any attempt to correct lies and misinformation online — even when they involved issues such as public health and election integrity, where getting correct information to citizens is essential — is “censorship.” In the court system, one key case the MRC put its faith in to further this narrative was Murthy v. Missouri, a case ginned up by right-wing then-Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt to advance conservative narratives aimed at stopping the federal government from addressing lies and misinformation (by, again, dishonestly framing reasonable efforts to do so as “censorship”). The case came up through the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is stacked with Trump-appointed judges and is notorious for inserting that conservative political bias into its rulings. The case eventually made it to the Supreme Court, and the MRC lobbied heavily for it while smearing its critics. Gabriela Pariseau groused in a Dec. 29 post:
Anti-free speech leftists continue to fight tooth and nail for the Biden administration to censor Americans.
Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia attorneys general wrote an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme to overturn a preliminary injunction ruling that prevents the Biden administration from colluding with social media platforms to censor online content. The amicus brief argued that the ruling allegedly “failed to properly distinguish between impermissible coercion and permissible efforts to persuade.” But, the Fifth Circuit did indeed make those distinctions. The Democrat attorneys general just don’t agree with them.
In the July 4 ruling for Missouri v. Biden (renamed Murthy v. Missouri), the Fifth Circuit court ruled that the Biden administration could no longer “engag[e] in any communication of any kind” with Big Tech companies for the purpose of “urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”
The ruling, however, did not prohibit the administration from notifying social media companies of “criminal activity or criminal conspiracies,” “national security threats,” “threats to public safety,” information “intending to mislead voters about voting requirements and procedures,” “cyber-attacks against election infrastructure, or foreign attempts to influence elections.” Essentially, so long as the administration was not working to curtail legal speech, it could communicate with a social media platform.
But the MRC has long complained that correcting lies and misinformation about those very things — particularly COVID-related misinformation – -constitutes “censorship.”
Luis Cornelio similarly bashed anyone not on board with its right-wing narrative in a Jan. 2 post:
A powerful group of leftist entities, including academics, doctors and a lawmaker, are rallying behind the Biden administration’s un-American censorship operations as it battles a pending Supreme Court case.
The influential leftists showed their support for the Biden administration in the form of various friend-of-the-court briefs for the Missouri v. Biden case (renamed Murthy v. Missouri). The briefs dubiously allege that blocking the federal government from influencing social media companies to censor free speech may undermine public health, national security and oddly enough, the First Amendment. The briefs, first reported by Just the News on Dec. 27, stemmed from the legal battle between the Biden administration and the Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana.
[…]
Citing alleged foreign attacks, Warner urged the Court to take adverse action against the lower courts’ rulings that found that the federal government violated the First Amendment when it coerced social media companies to censor Americans. “To preserve America’s ability to respond quickly and effectively to foreign malign influence campaigns that target our national security and elections, this Court should reverse the judgment of the Fifth Circuit in relevant part and direct that the preliminary injunction be vacated in its entirety,” Warner claimed. He ignored the injunction’s exceptions designed to allow the government to work with social media companies to protect Americans in cases of national security, election security and foreign interference.
Cornelio inserted an unwarranted “alleged” when a medical group pointed out medical misinformation:
Echoing the previous briefs’ sentiments, the American Academy of Pediatrics and American Medical Association resuscitated alleged COVID-19-related misinformation as reason enough to protect the federal government’s so-called ability to communicate with social media companies in the name of public health. “It is an indisputable scientific fact that vaccinations save lives,” the medical association claimed.
Cornelio didn’t explain why demonstrated misinformation and lies should be allowed to spread unchallenged, or why trying to correct those lies and misinformation is “un-American.” And one does not have to be labeled a “leftist” to want lies and misinformation to be corrected.
Catherine Salgado took the same approach on medical misinformation in a Jan. 25 post:
Five medical associations have filed a brief to the Supreme Court in support of the federal government’s efforts to censor free speech.
The Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general filed the Murthy v. Missouri case, which could lead to a free speech victory, against the federal government for pressuring social media to censor content on COVID-19 vaccines and other policies. The American Medical Association (AMA), however, along with four other similar groups, are siding with the Biden administration and against free speech in an amicus brief. According to an announcement, AMA and its allies assert that the government should be allowed to crush free speech, if it claims to be helping save lives.
[…]
Besides the AMA, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Geriatrics Society and the American College of Physicians filed the amicus brief supporting government censorship efforts. The brief, per AMA, argues that the vaccine saved thousands of lives and reduced the burden on the medical system. Thus the medical associations argue the government has a good reason for trying to silence alleged misinformation.
Ultimately, however, the fact remains that the First Amendment protects speech from government censorship, regardless of whether some medical experts believe it is harming uptake of their suggested healthcare response.
Salgado then tried to rehash some bogus COVID-related conspiracy theories:
AMA cited FDA approval of vaccines even though the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines widely available to the public were never approved, only Emergency Use Authorized. “The declining vaccination uptake spurred by disinformation has also resulted in a resurgence of diseases—such as measles—that previously verged on eradication,” AMA’s brief claimed.
A number of the claims made online about COVID-19 that were censored for misinformation were later considered reasonable. For instance, NIAID official Dr. Anthony Fauci has admitted that social distancing was not scientific but arbitrary. The COVID-19 lab leak origin theory gained credibility even among some Biden officials, including the FBI. Meanwhile, Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo is just one of numerous healthcare experts warning against the serious injury risks of the COVID-19 vaccine.
In fact, the Pfizer COVID vaccine received full FDA approval in August 2021, while the Moderna vaccine received full FDA approval in January 2022. Further, the lab-leak theory for the origin of COVID has yet to be conclusively proven, social distancing did help slow the spread of COVID, and Ladapo has been repeatedly busted for spreading COVID vaccine misinformation, so he simply can’t be trusted. All of this makes it look like Salgado wants COVID misinformation to spread unhindered.
Salgado returned to promote a fellow right-wing activist’s hyping the case in a March 11 post:
The president of the Brownstone Institute argued that a crucial upcoming Supreme Court case is so key that it effectively places Americans’ free speech rights on trial.
Brownstone president Jeffrey Tucker wrote in a March 1 column that he “never witnessed anything as crucial to the future of the idea of freedom itself compared with what will transpire on March 18, 2024.” That is the day on which the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Murthy v. Missouri’s arguments “concerning whether the government can force or nudge private companies to censor users on behalf of regime priorities.” The legal interpretation of the First Amendment and its freedoms will thus be at stake. MRC Free Speech America’s unique CensorTrack.org research was central to the Murthy v. Missouri suit.
The Supreme Court will be deciding if pre-trial intervention is needed after it previously stayed a lower court’s injunction restricting government censorship efforts, Tucker explained. “A ruling for the defense, which is essentially the government itself, will give license to every federal agency – including those that operate in secret like the FBI and CIA – to threaten every social media and media company in this country to delete any and all content that runs contrary to the approved narrative,” he warned.
[…]
Supreme Court justices will be “shocked” by the “trillion-dollar industry” to crush speech, Tucker predicted. “Every federal agency is involved, deeply embedded in the operations of all media companies and digital technology,” affecting everyone’s life, he accused. He compared Big Tech companies to the Soviet propaganda papers of yesteryear. Except now there is a “global industry” of censorship, ensuring only approved opinions can be seen online. And with Big Tech trying to program censorship into algorithms and artificial intelligence, this is a particularly key issue.
The vital liberty that the constitutional framers greatly valued is at stake, Tucker concluded. “As I say, this is surely the most important issue we face. A decision by the Supreme Court to let this go on – seeing no real issue here – will lead straight to our doom and the death of freedom itself.”
Neither Brown nor Salgado explained why lies and misinformation must be allowed to spread unchecked, or why spreading this is a “vital liberty.” And Salgado and her fellow writer didn’t explain why it’s “censorship” to correct lies and misinformation.
At the Supreme Court
When the case was heard in front of the Supreme Court, the MRC loudly whined that other points of view were discussed. 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 caseinvolved 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.