Thousands to Converge on Supreme Court to Protect Free Speech in Historic Case

Court to Decide Whether to Uphold Injunction against Federal Agencies in Case on March 18

Hundreds of free-speech advocates from across the country will converge on the Supreme Court Building on Monday, March 18, to protest the Biden administration's efforts to coerce and pressure the media and Big Tech to do its bidding. The landmark case, Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden), challenges government censorship on social media and is considered the most important Free Speech Rights case in US history. On March 18, the Supreme Court will decide whether to uphold the injunction against five federal agencies in the case. At stake is whether the government can direct social media companies to censor and suppress speech protected by the First Amendment.

Speakers include Del Bigtree, founder of the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) filmmaker, and individual-liberties activist; CHD founder and president Mary Holland; Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance founders Pierre Kory, MD, and Paul Marik, MD; Aaron Kheriaty, MD, director of the Program in Bioethics and American Democracy at the Ethics and Public Policy Center; and libertarian author and publisher Jeffrey Tucker, president of the Brownstone Institute.

Although censorship surrounding information on COVID-19 from medical doctors, scientists, and researchers was the primary impetus behind the Murthy v. Missouri appeal, evidence presented to the court goes far beyond public health issues. Statements of political support for candidates for public office, satire, commentary on foreign policy, antiwar activism, free speech advocacy, children's rights advocacy, and criticism of public officials have all been subject to censorship at the direct behest of the Biden administration. SCOTUS will hear arguments on why this is a violation of the First Amendment.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted the plaintiffs' motion for a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting the federal government from meeting with social media companies or otherwise seeking to influence their content-moderation policies. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the government's motion for an emergency stay and granted certiorari to review the case on the merits. Did the federal government's request that private social media companies take steps to prevent the dissemination of purported misinformation transform those companies' content-moderation decisions into state action and thus violate users' First Amendment rights?