Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., was among the first to see proof of what many Americans suspected: Big Tech engaging with the Biden presidency to silence conversation. He is presently reintroducing regulations to keep government bureaucrats and social media giant accountable for their omissions.  ,
The Missouri Republican, who served as the Show Me State’s attorney general in 2022, joined then-Louisiana AG Jeff Landry in suing the federal government for pressuring social media companies to judge views that were in conflict with the opinions of the selected authorities on Covid. The First Amendment lawsuit, or” Missouri v. Biden,” as it was known at the time, targeted the social networks and the word firms for using Orwell’s 1984 pages to block conversation.
In an upcoming episode of” The Federalist Radio Hour,” Schmitt stated,” Before we got an order, we got the prosecutor to allow us to have discovery.” The Land of the Free’s intimidating, stunning evidence-gathering procedure led to some frightful revelations about how far this nation’s authorities and technology oligarchs would go to restrict speech.  ,
The petition predated Elon Musk’s order of Twitter, the following Twitter Files, Republicans taking back the House, the following summons, House sessions and public launch of volumes of documents exposing the discourse suppressors.  ,  ,
We knew there was something there, but the degree, the detail, and the huge reach. We’re talking about companies that have never been heard of, companies that are working with the biggest companies in history to silence American voices, Schmitt said.  ,
‘ Dangers of the Court’s Teachings ‘
The conversation defenders, led by Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s son Attorney General, Attorney General Schmitt, won victories on the federal district and loop court levels but encountered a legal bottleneck in a decision that Columbia Law School professor Philip Hamburger described as “probably the worst completely speech decision in history.” In a column for The Federalist following the June ruling in what became Murthy v. Missouri, Hamburger wrote,” the Supreme Court hammered home the distressing conclusion that, under the court’s doctrines, the First Amendment is, for all practical purposes, unenforceable against large-scale government censorship”.
Hamburger’s civil rights firm, the New Civil Liberties Alliance, represented plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the government. He had warned that” Supreme Court doctrine has permitted and, consequently, invited the federal government to orchestrate massive censorship through social media websites.”
” The , Murthy , case, unfortunately, confirms the perils of the court’s doctrines”, the attorney wrote.  ,
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a staunch supporter of government rights, wrote the majority opinion that effectively remanded the case to the lower court due to lack of standing.  ,
Barrett blasted the chilling impact the government’s actions have had on primary constitutional rights in a breathtaking rejection of the damage done by a jawboning consortium of bad actors.  ,
” First, they argue they suffer’ continuing, present adverse effects’ from their past restrictions, as they must now self-censor on social media”, the justice wrote wrote. However, the plaintiffs are unable to establish standing by simply inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of unanticipated future harm.
” Explore It and Then Stop It,”
Schmitt argued that the decision does not negate the positive effects of the lawsuits, including exposing the government and social media platforms who violated the Bill of Rights without using any unfettered power or public safety. The censorship complaint compelled, among others, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the disgraced former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to sit for a deposition. Schmitt said it was interesting hearing the nation’s top Covid cop, the “respected scientist” who demanded his fellow Americans “follow the science”, say,” I don’t recall” 174 times during the deposition.  ,
” The importance of the lawsuit was two-fold: Expose it and then stop it”, the senator said of the censorship battle.  ,
Schmitt said he wants to make sure the culprits can never do what they did before because the culprits have been exposed. In order to accomplish this, he recently reintroduced three bills that he claims are intended to hold speech-stimulators accountable and protect victims. With a Republican majority in both house of congress, he’s feeling a lot better about the legislation’s chances.  ,
An Army of Citizens
The Censorship Accountability Act grants federal employees the right to file lawsuits for violations of “rights secured by the First Amendment.” The legislation is based on Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code, which is the main enforcement tool of civil rights law.
” It shouldn’t be up to one attorney general or two to bring this kind of action and expose it,” Schmitt said. ” I think we empower an army of citizens to hold their government accountable” . ,
According to the Transparency in Bureaucratic Communications Act, inspector general of federal agencies are required to look into and report on “potential collusion between social media companies.”
And the Collude Act eliminates Big Tech’s cherished Section 230 protections, which “modify or suppress legitimate political speech at the direction of a government entity.” For the better part of 30 years, tech Goliaths have been held legally responsible for content ( expression ) on their websites by Section 230 of the long-standing telecommunications law. The goal was to maintain the expanding information superhighway as open to ideas and creative expression of all kinds.  ,
Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Google, Twitter, and Facebook in lawsuits that aimed to hold the social media companies liable for fostering ISIS-led attacks in Paris via the terrorist organization’s use of the platforms. The ruling didn’t get into calls to diminish or eliminate Section 230 protections.  ,
” What’s changed now is you’ve got to pick. Either you’re going to be a publisher or you’re going to be a platform”, Schmitt said. You are not allowed to change the political whims of the person’s point of view.
Big Tech, their highly-paid attorneys, and a good number of free-market advocates disagree, arguing Section 230 doesn’t demand an either/or, and that Congress would first have to change the law before social media providers could be held legally accountable on allegations of stifling speech.  ,
” Countless companies, scholars, content creators and civil society organizations who joined with us in this case will be reassured by this result”, Halimah DeLaine Prado, Google general counsel, said in a statement following the ruling. She vowed that the tech giant would continue to work” to support businesses and creators who profit from the internet, protect free expression online, combat harmful content, and support free expression online.”
Safeguard free expression?  ,
” Work with Big Tech”
Google, Facebook, Amazon, and others censored books, videos, posts, and other online content, according to the House Judiciary Committee report titled,” The Censorship-Industrial Complex: How Top Biden White House Officials Coerced Big Tech to Censor Americans, True Information, and Critics of the Biden Administration“. According to the report, the Biden administration allegedly coerced Big Tech companies into changing their content moderation practices in response to White House criticism.  ,
Documents obtained through the lawsuits and investigations show that Big Tech didn’t appear to have been so coerced into offering a helping hand. Corporate media coverage of how then-incoming President Joe Biden would “work with Big Tech” may provide the seeds of this attitude.
Some of America’s most well-known technology companies have been squarely in the crosshairs of President Donald Trump over the past four years. Now industry bellwethers such as Amazon, Apple and Facebook are weighing what kind of reception they can expect from President-elect Joe Biden“, CBS News reported on Nov. 11, 2020.  ,
The story further reported:
During the transition, leaders in the tech industry have expressed both trepidation and optimism about the incoming Biden administration. Many people are concerned that Mr. Biden might use the Justice Department to bring up more antitrust litigation and expand federal oversight.  ,
However, Mr. Biden has frequently criticized the sector, but others find comfort in the company of former Apple, Facebook, and Google execs on his tech advisory board. A number of Amazon’s executives are also listed on Biden agency review teams.  ,
‘ I Think We’re Winning This Fight Now ‘ ,
What a difference four years and elections make. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos is sending well wishes to President-elect Donald Trump, and Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg has been going on his mea culpa tour, effectively telling all who will listen,” We didn’t do it, but Biden made us do it”. Zuckerberg promises that Meta will stop having its contentious fact-checking program and switch to a more inclusive, community-based system, similar to X’s Community Notes. And Facebook and Instagram, Mr. Zuckbucks says, will go easier on political content.  ,
On Friday’s edition of Joe Rogan’s podcast, Zuckerberg claimed Facebook was browbeaten by Biden officials to remove content they didn’t like.  ,
” Basically, these people from the Biden administration would call up our team and, like, scream at them and curse”, Zuckerberg told Rogan. ” It just got to this point where we were like,’ No, we’re not gonna, we’re not gonna take down things that are true. That’s ridiculous.'”
Ridiculous.Â
Schmitt claims he wants to prevent such absurd offenses from occurring again. He claimed that his legislation is a good first step. The senator believes some of Zuckerberg’s sorry parade —” a PR play” — has to do with the reintroduction of the accountability bills, now in a Republican-controlled Congress that, if passed, would go to Republican President Donald Trump’s desk. Zuckerberg will be sent a letter soon, according to Schimitt, to get a better sense of his intentions.  ,
” I think we’re winning this fight now. I wouldn’t have said that a few years ago”, he said. People think that you should be able to express your opinions freely and that the government shouldn’t be able to do that.” We’ve made the case.
Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., will join us on Tuesday’s episode of” The Federalist Radio Hour” . ,
Matt Kittle covers The Federalist’s senior elections coverage. An award-winning investigative reporter and 30-year veteran of print, broadcast, and online journalism, Kittle previously served as the executive director of Empower Wisconsin.
