Forbes is once again calling for harsh censorship and promoting a Supreme Court decision that struck a major blow at First Amendment rights.
After the Wednesday Supreme Court Murthy v. Missouri ruling that refused to restrict or stop government collusion to censor online speech, Forbes portrayed the decision as good, a “start,” but not quite enough. “We shouldn't expect the flow of misinformation or disinformation on social media to slow,” Forbes declared. “Still, at least the floodgates will be perhaps a bit less open following Wednesday's Supreme Court decision.” Forbes totally overlooked constitutional rights and argued for even more aggressive government action to suppress speech with which it happens to disagree.
Much of the Forbes piece included quotes from pro-censorship individuals. For instance, it cited Nora Benavidez, who works for the leftist organization Free Press as senior counsel and director of Digital Justice and Civil Rights. She told Forbes, “There are essential moments when our government should be allowed, even encouraged, to contact private companies like social-media platforms and provide factual information to them.” After this concerning assertion, she dismissed the idea that the court ruling specifically dealt with First Amendment rights violations.
“But the Biden administration's efforts to fight misinformation do not amount to censorship; rather, they are efforts to make platforms aware of the potential public harms that could result from the unvetted spread of falsehoods via their networks,” she claimed. Yet Murthy provided evidence that, as Justice Alito wrote in his dissenting opinion, the Biden administration not only pressured Big Tech to enact specific and biased censorship, it actually coerced the platforms to do so.
While admitting that free speech advocates were disappointed by the ruling, Forbes quickly returned to promoting claims that the Biden administration had not really pressured social media. Indeed, the outlet argued that more government efforts to suppress speech are needed, since “experts have suggested that the problem of misinformation remains and the ruling may not fully address it.”
One of these “experts” that Forbes cited was University of Michigan professor Dr. Cliff Lampe who stunningly mourned the idea the ruling may mean there is not enough online censorship. He noted that the court affirmed “the protection of the free speech of the platforms, which are not government agencies.” He glumly added that “[T]his does mean that misinformation can be propagated more easily—as often bad misleading information is protected by free speech rules as well.”
Another expert, lecturer Jason Mollica, expressed his goal of having guidelines so that government pressure could certainly result in tangible and obvious censorship of content.
Forbes then added in agreement that, “Until those guidelines present themselves, the problem of misinformation is likely to continue—even if the government can nudge the platforms to crack down on the most egregious attempts to serve up disinformation.”
Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called “hate speech” and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using MRC Free Speech America’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
