A Hoover Institution fellow insisted that a recent injunction against Big Tech-government censorship must stand to protect free speech.
Richard A. Epstein, a Senior Fellow (Adjunct) with the Hoover Institution think tank, supported a recent injunction that attempted to restrict federal government censorship collusion with Big Tech.
In a July 18 piece, Epstein argued that the injunction written by Judge Terry Doughty as part of the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit is a First Amendment win. “The Biden administration should be forbidden to pressure social-media companies to manipulate COVID discussion,” Epstein wrote. The lawsuit cited original research from MRC Free Speech America.
Opinions must be tested in the public square, and “the chances of getting the wrong answer are far greater if one person can dictate what other individuals can say and read,” Epstein went on. While judicial precedent from a previous court case deemed social media companies private, he wrote, “detailed evidence” of “extensive coordination” between Big Tech and government have clearly changed the situation.
Epstein argued that when examining the relationship between the government and Big Tech, one will find that it was in many ways both “consensual” and “coercive.” He wrote that “both forms of intervention undercut any claim that the decisions to ban were private decisions.” In other words, whether the Big Tech companies were willingly censoring after government requests or censoring after undue pressure from the government, the social media companies ceased to be merely private.
The Biden administration argued that “its active cooperation with these companies is part of a vital public campaign to stop the spread of ‘disinformation’ on social media.” But, as Epstein explained, the government’s claims are very deceptive. Indeed, media critics of the pro-free speech injunction often ignore the fact that three of the censored plaintiffs are physicians: Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya, epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff and Dr. Aaron Kheriaty.
“Using the term ‘disinformation’ to describe the position taken by these three physicians cuts out the heart of the First Amendment,” Epstein explained. “The progressive side of the debate posits that disinformation is what their opponents are peddling and then asks, if we know that the critics are wrong, why not clamp down on these dangerous sentiments?” Epstein quoted the Roman poet Juvenal, asking, “‘Who guards the guardians?’” and then added, “No one, really.”
Epstein also dismissed the Biden administration’s justification of “imminent peril” without censorship, noting that the censored individuals were medical experts while the Biden representatives certainly were not.
Ultimately, Epstein argued, decisions on care should be left to physicians and patients, not mandated from above by the government.
Instead, the government demanded that Big Tech companies censor physicians and ultimately condemned the physicians in statements so broad that the very generality of the condemnations became disinformation. How does further disinformation solve the alleged problem of disinformation? There has not been a “reasoned response from a government official” to justify the censorship, Epstein also explained.
By treating reasonable hesitancy about untested vaccines and apparent evidence of potential vaccine risk as ridiculous and irrational, the government was wrong, Epstein argued. Why should the White House dictate which doctors are right and which are wrong?
Epstein concluded, “Judge Doughty’s ban on government meddling in the market for health information should stand. We need to keep the public debate alive.”
Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech and government agencies 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 CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
