Over the last century, America’s ruling class has used the risk of “mis-, dis-, and mal-information” to support turning the great capabilities of the administrative state against local Wrongthinkers from wealthy conservatism. The most nefarious and far-reaching expression of this trend has been seen in the Censorship-Industrial Complex, which has eroded our First Amendment, thus imperiling the state itself.
Frighteningly, a new report indicates that the Supreme Court — which refused to bring the censorship regime to justice— not just shares this regime’s concerns about “disinformation”, but also supports powerful and popular action to” fight” it. Chief Justice John Roberts himself is the author of the report.
Roberts sought to explain what he believes are the biggest threats to the liberation of his fellow justices, and thus the rule of law itself, in his late released annual review. He distinguishes between” powerful and passionate emotions” to and “informed condemnation” of the courtroom on the one hand, and independence-threatening “illegitimate action” on the other.
Disinformation is one of the four types of actions the chief justice labels as unlawful, noting that this includes “distortion of the scientific or constitutional basis for a decision,” which” can undermine confidence in the court system.” He complains that the court is unfit to” combat this problem” because judges are typically motionless on their decisions.
” To make matters worse”, the deputy justice adds, citing concerns laid out in his 2019 year-end report,” the current disinformation problem is magnified by cultural media, which provides a set channel to ‘ immediately spread rumor and false information.'” Next, he endorsed” political education as the best cure for combating the outbreaks of misinformation”.
Now Roberts asserts that “much more is needed — and on a coordinated, national level — not only to counter traditional propaganda, but also to fight a new and growing problem from abroad …]whereby ] hostile foreign state players have accelerated their attempts to attack all branches of our state, including the court”. He contends that they do so by misrepresenting decisions and “using false or exaggerated narratives to foment discord in our democracy” or by compromising public trust in our processes and outcomes.
The chief justice comes to the conclusion that “e must as a nation publicly acknowledge the risks and take all necessary steps to stop them.” ]Emphasis mine ]
Let’s face it: It’s undoubtedly repugnant to try to delegitimize the Supreme Court, especially when actors simply disagree with its decisions. And let’s say that a world in which people debated rulings with their merits and with facts was a good one. A genuine civic education would also be beneficial. Moreover, if our schools imparted basic knowledge and encouraged critical thinking, the chances are that the breadth of the arguments on social media would be infinitely higher.
But Justice Roberts here is betraying the same worldview as a U. S. government that itself has not only proven arguably the most prolific and powerful purveyor of “mis-, dis-, and mal-information” ( see: Russiagate, for starters ) but has weaponized itself against Americans harboring ideas it disfavors under the guise of combatting “mis-, dis-, and mal-information”.
The notion that there is an “epidemic of misinformation”, and that action “on a coordinated, national scale” is needed to counter it is precisely the logic used to justify the creation of the fed-led Censorship-Industrial Complex, and initiate the broader War on Wrongthink whereby in recent years, the feds have targeted all from January 6ers to concerned parents and devout Catholics like domestic terrorists.
Following in Biden’s Footsteps
It is striking to compare Chief Justice Roberts ‘ year-end report to the Biden administration’s first-of-its-kind National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism, released in June 2021.
The strategy states that” to strengthen faith in American democracy requires accelerating work to deal with an information environment that challenges healthy democratic discourse.”
The administration pledged federal authorities to work with” state, local, tribal, and territorial governments and in civil society, the private sector, academia, and local communities, as well as with our allies and foreign partners” to achieve goals including “enhancing faith in government and addressing the extreme polarization, fueled by a crisis of disinformation and misinformation often channeled through social media platforms, which can tear Americans apart and lead some to violence”.
It’s unclear whether the chief justice supports the Biden administration’s equivalent practices, which include violating our rights. He and his coworkers could make their work more concise. In this vein, the court’s refusal to take on the censorship regime during the 2023-24 term does little to dispel concerns.
A Warning from the Minority
Last summer, in Murthy v. Missouri, the majority by a 6-3 margin, including the chief justice, refused to rule on the merits of a case that put the fed-led censorship on trial by claiming the plaintiffs lacked standing. As Justice Sam Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, argued in his dissent, the court tortured the standards of standing to punt a case that had produced voluminous evidence of government-driven censorship.
Namely, evidence showed myriad federal authorities from the Biden White House to DHS and HHS had colluded, coerced, and cajoled social media companies, directly and via cutouts, to abridge en masse Americans ‘ protected speech, ranging from the Hunter Biden laptop story to election integrity and Covid-19. I wrote a report exclusively for RealClearInvestigations about some of the arresting records of these initiatives, including Mollie Hemingway, The Federalist’s Editor-in-Chief, and other figures.
The minority warned that:
What the officials did in this case was not only less coercive than the ham-handed censorship that was found to be unconstitutional in Vullo [another case before the Court last term]. And because of the perpetrators ‘ high positions, it was even more dangerous. It was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so.
It is true that malicious actors both domestically and abroad can use social media to advance nefarious goals by spreading falsehoods or false stories more quickly and on a larger scale than at any other time in history. The worst idea of all is that government should be the arbiter of what we’re allowed to say and hear, as I testified before Congress in a hearing on the “nerve center” of fed-led censorship in Murthy.
This would be so even if prominent figures up to and including the chief justice’s colleagues themselves never trafficked in mis- or dis-information, even if they were omniscient, fair, and wise.
I also testified that, historically, we would have held in contempt authorities who suggest we are incapable of thinking for ourselves, who do the thinking for us, and silence those who dare dissent.
Justice Roberts has long been concerned about protecting the court as an institution and, as he lays out in his year-end report, its independence.
He would be better served to avoid leaks and hold leakers accountable, a serious assault on the court, than to express such concern about how the public views and wrestles with their views.
In defense of our most precious rights, he and the court’s participation in the project to demolish the Censorship-Industrial Complex and defuse the weaponized administrative state is most important.
Ben Weingarten is editor at large for RealClearInvestigations. He is a senior contributor to The Federalist, columnist at Newsweek, and a contributor to the New York Post and Epoch Times, among other publications. Subscribe to his newsletter at weingarten. substack .com, and follow him on Twitter: @bhweingarten.
