•  
  •  
 

Abstract

As the influence of social media proliferates, two things increase accordingly: government attempts to control it and the law’s attempt to provide a coherent framework. There are ongoing conversations both within and without the legal community about the extent to which individuals have a right against the social media companies to create or consume content. But the Court in Murthy v. Missouri had a chance to sidestep those questions and address whether individuals have a right against the government to curb its influence on those companies. This issue has the potential to be one of the most significant questions in modern times, which is whether the free flow of ideas on social media will be generally free from or subjected to government control. This article analyzes the Court’s decision in Murthy, not only explaining the holding on standing but also forecasting how that holding will influence lawsuits moving forward. It posits that the strictures the Court articulated will make it exceedingly difficult for plaintiffs to obtain relief of this kind when they allege government-coerced censorship. The article takes a realistic look at whether and how the law can protect the individual against the behemoth (particularly when the behemoth wields the government sword), but it also discusses the “why.” The “why,” here, is a biblical argument for a free press, making the case that outside of divine rule itself, a government open and responsive to the voice of the people is an essential element of a just society.

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS