In the United States, protecting both free speech and religious liberty is essential for a healthy, diverse society. Censorship, especially when it limits religious expression, threatens the very core of these freedoms.
If the government gains more leverage over platform speech, it might restrict religious expression deemed harmful, even if the platforms themselves would allow it.
When it’s applied too broadly, it loses its punch. People become numb to it, and its ability to highlight real dangers fades. This is a serious issue in a world where actual extremist threats, like white supremacist groups or violent anarchists, exist. If we keep crying wolf, we might miss the real threats.
The Supreme Court will soon decide Moody v. NetChoice, LLC & NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, addressing whether social media platforms can ban content based on political or religious views.
The Supreme Court ruled that Colorado can’t force a website designer to create designs that go against their beliefs, protecting free speech rights. This decision has implications for artists and creative producers who have reasons to decline certain projects.
Why AB 2098 could lead to a chilling effect among California’s medical professionals
This week as Alex Jones was hit with a nearly $1 billion judgment for what he said on his radio show and PayPal hastily withdrew a “misinformation fine” that it “accidentally” included in its user agreement, it’s worth taking a step back and understanding how the Courts have interpreted this fundamental right.
During the 2022-23 term, the Supreme Court will consider a case that raises this issue: “Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.”
The Court took an ax to the trunk of the Lemon tree and replaced it with a vague “history and tradition” rule.
But as the government continues to pull the strings by asking private companies to curtail freedom of speech it increasingly becomes an actor in unconstitutionally curtailing freedom of speech.