SCOTUS Takes On Facebook

PUBLISHED: 8:55 PM 17 Oct 2018
UPDATED: 11:31 PM 17 Oct 2018

SCOTUS Agrees To Hear ‘Free Speech’ Case That Could Impact Social Media Censors

The case, which involves a public access television network, could have wide reaching implications concerning the censorship of conservatives on social media.

Leftist outlets are worried that the Supreme Court could impact social media censorship.

In a stunning announcement, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could impact social media forever. The case will determine whether Facebook, Twitter, and other leftist social media platforms have the power to censor certain users.

Technically, Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, centers on whether a private operator of a public access television network is considered a state actor, which can be sued for First Amendment violations. However, a broad ruling from the now conservative court could leave Facebook and others open to First Amendment lawsuits.

As many readers know, Conservative Daily Post was recently targeted. After earning over seven million views in September, Facebook purged all administrator accounts and pages last Thursday.

This court battle could control Facebook, Twitter and Google’s ability to censor what content is viewed on their platforms.

NBC reported:

“On its face, the case has nothing to do with social media at all. Rather, the facts of the case concern public access television, and two producers who claim they were punished for expressing their political views. The producers, DeeDee Halleck and Jesus Melendez, say that Manhattan Neighborhood Network suspended them for expressing views that were critical of the network.

In making the argument to the justices that the case was worthy of review, attorneys for MNN said the court could use the case to resolve a lingering dispute over the power of social media companies to regulate the content on their platforms.

Attorneys for MNN have made the case that social media companies are clearly not government actors. But in raising the question, they have provided the Supreme Court an opportunity to weigh in.”

“We stand at a moment when the very issue at the heart of this case—the interplay between private entities, nontraditional media, and the First Amendment—has been playing out in the courts, in other branches of government, and in the media itself,” attorneys for MNN wrote in their final plea.

The move is a threat to many on the political left, who have for years now benefited from tech giants skewing information toward a liberal bent.

NBC bemoaned the fact that according to an analysis, Chief Justice John Roberts’ court has shown a distinct preference for speech cases that concern conservative ideology. The study concluded “that the justices on the court appointed by Republican presidents sided with conservative speech nearly 70 percent of the time.”

“More than any other modern Court, the Roberts Court has trained its sights on speech promoting conservative values,” the authors claimed.

“Eighty-five percent of Republicans believe that social media companies censor speech the companies find objectionable, compared with 62 percent of Democrats, according to a June survey conducted by the Pew Research Center.”

The same survey determined that 4 in 10 Americans think social media favors liberal speech, versus just 1 in 10 who believe the opposite.

Rep. Devin Nunes recently blasted Twitter for censorship and threatened legal action. A Project Veritas undercover video showed Twitter employees discussing the ‘shadow ban’ technique used on conservatives.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey called Sean Hannity’s radio show shortly afterthe video was released and said, “We do not shadow ban according to political ideology or viewpoint or content. Period.”

Google has also released a statement claiming that its search feature “is not used to set a political agenda and we don’t bias our results toward any political ideology.”

During an April hearing before the Senate’s Commerce and Judiciary Committees, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was asked by Ted Cruz about whether Facebook considered itself a “neutral public forum.”

“There are a great many Americans who I think are deeply concerned that that Facebook and other tech companies are engaged in a pervasive pattern of bias and political censorship,” Cruz stated.

Zuckerberg claimed that Facebook is a “platform for all ideas.”

However, at Conservative Daily Post, we know that ‘our ideas’ were ruthlessly stripped from the approximate two million viewers we had.

Many people would be thrilled if SCOTUS did something about the massive, thought-control monopoly that exists.