In an Independence Day ruling, a federal judge, backed by a mountain of evidence of government manipulation, enjoined the Biden administration in Biden v. Missouri from pressuring social media companies to remove user posts.
That is, posts Democrats don’t like.
In other words, Biden must stop classic leftist authoritarian censorship by proxy.
Any prior administration would have been chastened by such a record and ruling that clearly demonstrated government censorship.
The Biden administration to date, has admitted no fault.
In fact, they brazenly justify their behavior, with the unfailing support of the mainstream media, by asserting they had to silence their opposition, because freedom of speech is dangerous to the public good.
Free speech is dangerous to people in power, that's why no leftist government in history tolerates dissent, or fails to use whatever levers of power they have to punish nonconformists.
The First Amendment protects American businesses from the government telling them what sort of expression they must allow on their property and platforms, both on and offline.
For example, your local coffee shop can refuse you service if you walk in without shoes.
The government doesn't have the right to force them to serve you.
In June the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment also protects social media platforms in 303 Creative, LLC, v. Elenis.
It ruled against the left who wanted the government to force a business to put its name on content that violates its speech rights.
Our Founders created the First Amendment to protect against these types of government overreach. Democrats used to lead the fight against the government, but now they want to crush any dissent from their government edicts.
That’s why it’s so important for the courts and Congress to clarify what First Amendment restrictions exist on the government’s ability to pressure social media sites to remove specific content, known as jawboning.
Right now, officials in the federal government, like the FBI, can make unlimited requests to social media sites to take down First Amendment protected speech, such as views on the origins of COVID-19.
Regardless of their own views, social media sites succumb to that pressure for a lot of understandable reasons.
- If you ran a social media site and received an email from the FBI warning you that user posts on your site could undermine national security, would you feel compelled to remove them?
- What if those emails were backed by threats from leftist politicians, including the President, that if you don’t remove so-called "harmful" speech, your business will be restricted, broken up or even shut down?
That governmental pressure was frequently flexed during COVID-19, a time when officials from all over the federal government were making requests to social media to remove content.
President Biden even went so far to accuse Facebook of "killing people" for not removing enough "misinformation" about the pandemic, while his White House press secretary threatened antitrust actions for noncompliance.
In response to Judge Doughty’s injunction, the left, through their leftist media mouthpieces, insist that the government must be allowed to strong-arm social media.
Recently, in The Washington Post, progressive groups lamented how this ruling might allow more so-called "misinformation" and "disinformation" online and thereby "harm . . . our democratic processes."
So, to protect democracy, the left argues we must undermine constitutionally-protected democratic rights and let the government decide what is "too harmful" for Americans to read.
These are truly Orwellian thoughts.
Thankfully, Elon Musk's release of "The Twitter Files," and increased reporting about government pressure on social media sites inspired Republicans to pause from their complaining about social media companies and pass a proposal to get at the real threat to our republic.
In March, Congress passed a bill that would reduce the government’s power to control online speech. This anti-censorship bill, "Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act" was introduced by Reps. McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and James Comer, R-Ky.
Not a single Democrat in the House voted "Yes."
No action is expected in the Democratically-controlled Senate where there is little appetite to stand up to the leftt adherents who have taken over their party.
Given the GOP's attitudes, one being against social media companies, I fear the next Republican president may take the same position as President Biden.
This would lock our country in in a free speech death spiral.
Democrats will scream, but like indicting a former president, they will have been complicit in destroying another pillar of our republic.
For now, the only branch defending freedom of speech is the judicial.
Judge Doughty authored a principled and devastating takedown of the Biden administration, and in doing, so provided a good record for the high court to defend the freedom of speech by placing at least some constitutional limits on government censorship.
Let this sink in: Democrats no longer oppose government censorship.
Democrats no longer support the freedom to speak in opposition to their positions.
It's time for Americans, particularly liberal and moderate Democrats, to stop kidding themselves and recognize what the Democrats have become, before it's too late.
Rick Santorum is a former U.S. senator, who represented Pennsylvania's 18th District, from 1995 to 2007. He is also an author, attorney, and political commentator.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.