Writer: Ansley Morlock
Editor: Arev Buchaklian
March 10th, 2024
The Murthy v. Missouri case specifically deals with a lot of politics. But the broader question it asks could change the way we can express ourselves and hear what others have to say as well. The Murthy v. Missouri case touches on whether the spread of misinformation on social media platforms should be protected or justified but it encompasses a great deal more. From a case-specific perspective, this issue examines direct, political issues. However, the broader question leads the United States to ponder the issue of the spread of misinformation on social media platforms, and could change the way citizens express themselves and listen to alternative information. The background behind this case is that the Attorney General of Louisiana argued that the Biden Administration cooperated with certain social media companies to censor conservative viewpoints under the clause of the spread of misinformation (Macpherson, 2023). For example, Biden advocating for the removal of Trump's tweets, which stated he won the 2020 presidential election because the election votes were fraudulent, was questioned because he was withstanding what was being spread from the opposing party.
Freedom of speech is essential in a democratic society like the United States. In the age of social media as a primary way to spread, share, and absorb information, this right protects such abilities. Without freedom of speech, our government would be able to dictate what citizens can and cannot say to express themselves, reflecting more community societies (U.S. Department of State, 2020).
Unfortunately, it is easy to fall victim to misinformation, especially when it comes to politics. In general, I do not believe it is the government or social media’s responsibility to ensure individuals avoid misinformation. People must learn to judge the information they consume wisely and make informed choices about what to believe and why. In my eyes, this isn’t a problem with the government and social media companies, this is a problem for the people to learn to discern the information they take in and pick and choose correctly what they are going to believe and what that belief is going to be based on.
However, when it comes to politics, the lines become more blurred between who is responsible for the consummation of misinformation by individuals. Using the election fraud example previously mentioned, numerous individuals trust our former president to consistently speak the truth, often overlooking the political motivations behind their statements. It is essential, however, to understand that the president, like anyone else, is also human with the same right to the freedom of speech and can post mostly anything he wishes. People are often unable to discern media without bias, so when it comes to issues that people may want to be true, they are willing to believe the first person to say it is true without any source of evidence because they want it to be that bad (Casad & Luebering, 2024). It is important to take all information with a grain of salt because, constitutionally, it is not the government’s place to limit our freedom of speech, and if they do, that could start to limit information people spread non-politically.
This case also questions the right of private companies to delete comments based on users' agreement to its terms and conditions. It highlights the debate over restricting freedom of speech within non-governmental entities, recognizing that companies have a right to autonomy in decision-making. Personally, I think social media companies should also have a role in limiting media that can be endangering to the community, such as hate speech or the events that occurred on January 6th. This decision will be influential no matter the outcome.
References
Casad, B. J., & Luebering, J. E. (2024, February 14). Confirmation bias. Encyclopædia
Macpherson, L. (2023b, December 6). A Supreme Court ruling in Murthy v. Missouri could
help – or hinder – democracy next year. Public Knowledge. https://publicknowledge.org/a-supreme-court-ruling-in-murthy-v-missouri-could-help-or-hinder-democracy-next-year/
Murthy v. Missouri. Oyez. (n.d.). https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-411
U.S. Department of State. (2020, December 18). China’s disregard for Human Rights - United
States Department of State. U.S. Department of State. https://2017-2021.state.gov/chinas-disregard-for-human-rights/
Comments