In 2024, the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled to defend a pretty obvious idea about free speech: viz., that the government cannot punish people or companies simply for saying things that government officials dislike or disagree with. Being a media organization, this principle is of fundamental importance to Ars Technica.
Unfortunately, nearly one year on, the government is routinely trying to censor voices it doesn't like. The recent blow-up surrounding late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel is just one of the most obvious examples of the new censorship regime. But the case also shows that, even where courts do not act, the public can still successfully push for change.
Disfavored speech
Here's how Justice Sonia Sotomayor put the basic free speech principle last year:
Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entity’s 'threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion' against a third party 'to achieve the suppression' of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment. Today, the Court reaffirms what it said then: Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.
Current Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr has long known this. A few years back, when the Republican bogeyman was "social media censorship of conservatives," Carr regularly tweeted out things like:
If a social media company gets pressured by a government official (Republican or Democrat) to censor protected speech, I think the company should quickly and publicly disclose that request... There should also be accountability for government officials that jawboned social media companies like Facebook into censoring Americans’ protected speech.
This was in line with early executive orders, such as one in favor of "freedom of speech" that complained about attempts to exert "substantial coercive pressure on third parties... to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve."