What are the chances that a President Kamala Harris would resist pressuring social media companies into censorship? Based on her record: Not great.
When asked why he robbed banks, legendary fugitive Willie Sutton replied, “That’s where the money is.” Governments coerce social media platforms into censorship for the same simple reason: That’s where the objectionable speech is.
Thanks to a recent Supreme Court case, in America, there’s also little to stop them.
Social media platforms—but not their users—can sue the government to stop the impermissible suppression of speech, according to Murthy v. Missouri, decided in June. The Court held that social media users could not establish a causal link between government pressure and the suppression of their posts because “the platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment.” In an America where platforms’ interest in censoring disfavored views often align with the government’s, who is in a position legally to stop it?
Continue reading the entire piece here at The Free Press
______________________
Abigail Shrier is a contributing editor to The Free Press, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and the New York Times best-selling author of Bad Therapy.
Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images