"Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entity's 'threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion' against a third party 'to achieve the suppression' of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment. Today, the Court reaffirms what it said then: Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors."
"Current Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr has long known this. A few years back, when the Republican bogeyman was "social media censorship of conservatives," Carr regularly tweeted out things like: If a social media company gets pressured by a government official (Republican or Democrat) to censor protected speech, I think the company should quickly and publicly disclose that request... There should also be accountability for government officials that jawboned social media companies like Facebook into censoring Americans' protected speech."
In 2024 the US Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that government entities cannot coerce private parties to suppress disfavored speech, protecting First Amendment rights. Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized that threats of legal sanctions and other coercive means to achieve suppression violate the Constitution. Government officials continue attempts to pressure or censor voices they dislike, with the Jimmy Kimmel controversy as an example. Public pressure can prompt remedial action even when courts do not intervene. FCC Chair Brendan Carr urged companies to disclose government censorship requests and called for accountability for officials who jawbone platforms.
Read at Ars Technica
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]