Do you remember the US government’s “Fighting COVID-19 Disinformation Monitoring Program”? The program which required all the major online platforms and search engines to report back to the government on their efforts to suppress what the government deemed “misinformation” or “disinformation” and which was rolled out in conjunction with draft legislation, since become law, which would give the government draconian powers to ensure compliance?
'So, even supposing the Supreme Court finds in favour of the plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri and upholds the injunction, what will have been gained? The U.S. Government will be prevented from talking to the platforms on “content moderation”, but the European Commission, the executive organ of a foreign power, will still be able to do so. How is that a victory?'
It's not a victory but it's incremental progress. As such, not worthless by any means. Legal remedies are tightly constrained. If Murthy v Missouri is struck down, for example, it would likely be on grounds of standing, which would not directly address the censorship issue.
'If you truly want to defend Americans’ freedom of speech, then the EU has to be confronted. Attacking the Biden administration for informal contacts with online platforms while staying silent about the EU’s systematic infringement and undermining of Americans’ First Amendment rights – and instrumentalising of American companies to this end! – is not defending freedom of speech. It is grandstanding.'
While I would not call it grandstanding, nevertheless I totally agree with your larger point, which is that the entire censorship enterprise needs to be addressed on a global scale. That's not a legal strategy, however, rather it's a journalistic and legislative one.
Aside: Many US citizens claim to treasure the First Amendment yet still know very little about it. For example, I would hazard that most people don't realize it only restricts *government* suppression of speech. Private parties and even corporations are free to suppress all they want, at least in First Amendment contexts. Further, I'll bet that most Americans don't realize that free speech protection is much more limited elsewhere in the world.
'So, even supposing the Supreme Court finds in favour of the plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri and upholds the injunction, what will have been gained? The U.S. Government will be prevented from talking to the platforms on “content moderation”, but the European Commission, the executive organ of a foreign power, will still be able to do so. How is that a victory?'
It's not a victory but it's incremental progress. As such, not worthless by any means. Legal remedies are tightly constrained. If Murthy v Missouri is struck down, for example, it would likely be on grounds of standing, which would not directly address the censorship issue.
'If you truly want to defend Americans’ freedom of speech, then the EU has to be confronted. Attacking the Biden administration for informal contacts with online platforms while staying silent about the EU’s systematic infringement and undermining of Americans’ First Amendment rights – and instrumentalising of American companies to this end! – is not defending freedom of speech. It is grandstanding.'
While I would not call it grandstanding, nevertheless I totally agree with your larger point, which is that the entire censorship enterprise needs to be addressed on a global scale. That's not a legal strategy, however, rather it's a journalistic and legislative one.
Aside: Many US citizens claim to treasure the First Amendment yet still know very little about it. For example, I would hazard that most people don't realize it only restricts *government* suppression of speech. Private parties and even corporations are free to suppress all they want, at least in First Amendment contexts. Further, I'll bet that most Americans don't realize that free speech protection is much more limited elsewhere in the world.