Facebook vs. Freedom: Supreme Court Set to Rule on Biden’s Online Censorship Scheme

The showdown happening in the Supreme Court today isn’t just another legal squabble—it’s a battle for the soul of the internet. In the ring is Murthy v. Missouri, a case that could shape how we chat, share, and express ourselves online for years to come.

Picture this: on one side, you’ve got the Biden administration, flexing its muscles to pressure social media giants into censoring what it calls “misinformation” and “disinformation.” On the other side, you’ve got folks from Missouri and Louisiana saying, fairly “that’s not how free speech works!”

The heart of the matter is simply: did the government overstep its bounds by leaning on Facebook and Twitter to zap posts it didn’t like? We’re talking everything from COVID-19 theories to Hunter Biden’s laptop saga—all fair game for the censorship chopping block. (Obviously, the answer is “YES.”)

But, the feds argue these social media platforms are private turf, so they can play censor if they want. Of course, they’re selectively forgetting that it’s not private platforms censoring the speech alone. It’s the government *literally* instructing these private platforms to censor speech.

This decision will have a major impact on who gets to control what we see, say, and share online. And let’s be real, if the government’s whispering in Facebook’s ear about what to delete, that’s a slippery slope toward a Big Brother-style internet.

Former Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt (now a U.S. Senator) nailed it when he said, “The federal government should not be censoring American speech. And they don’t get to end-run around the Constitution by having social media platforms do it for them.”

So, as the Supremes hash it out, remember: our right to speak our minds isn’t just a Constitutional right—it’s also what makes the internet the wild, wonderful, and sometimes wacky place it is. Imagine how boring everything would be if this administration got to dictate what we say on every platform.