Supreme Court Ruling To Bring Hobbs' Censorship Into Sharp Focus: Murthy v. Missouri - A Landmark Case for Online Free Speech? - 10-22-2023
Episode Summary:
This month, a testimony in Arizona by the former solicitor general of Missouri highlighted the alleged illegal censorship by then-Secretary of State Katie Hobbs against her political adversaries. This testimony has gained prominence due to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court will now consider a case, Murthy v. Missouri, which questions if government officials, like Hobbs, can limit conservative speech on platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and X. This case originates from a lawsuit filed by five social media users and the Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana. Dean John Sauer, the attorney in the case, provided detailed insights on Hobbs' actions to the Arizona State House of Representatives' Ad Hoc Committee on Oversight, Accountability, and Big Tech. Sauer frequently mentioned the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing & Analysis Center (EI-ASAC) and the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in relation to the Secretary of State's interactions. Critics, including Sauer, argue that these agencies acted as government extensions, suppressing "core political speech" through private companies on behalf of Hobbs and other politicians. Sauer emphasized that the emails he reviewed revealed a federal national security consortium established in 2020, with Arizona State officials actively participating. He also pointed out that the Secretary of State's Office was deeply involved in this federal censorship mechanism. Sauer's testimony suggests that the censorship was more pervasive and insidious than previously believed. The committee, chaired by Rep. Alex Kolodin, also heard from other experts who proposed potential reforms for the upcoming legislative session.
Key Takeaways:
- The U.S. Supreme Court is set to review a significant case on political censorship on platforms like Facebook.
- The case, Murthy v. Missouri, originates from a lawsuit by social media users and Republican attorneys general.
- Dean John Sauer's testimony highlighted alleged censorship activities by then-Secretary of State Katie Hobbs.
- Agencies like EI-ASAC and CISA are criticized for suppressing "core political speech" on behalf of politicians.
- The Arizona State officials were actively involved in a federal national security consortium established in 2020.
Supreme Court Ruling To Bring Hobbs' Censorship Into Sharp Focus: Murthy v. Missouri - A Landmark Case for Online Free Speech? - 10-22-2023
This month's testimony in Arizona by the former solicitor general of Missouri on how then-Secretary of State Katie Hobbs illegally censored her political opponents has taken on new significance in light of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Friday.
The Supreme Court agreed to take up a case and decide whether government officials, like Hobbs, can suppress speech by conservatives on platforms like Facebook, YouTube and X. The case, known as Murthy v. Missouri, stems from a suit brought by five social media users and the Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana.
The attorney in that case, Dean John Sauer, testified in detail on Hobbs' actions in front of the Arizona State House of Representatives' Ad Hoc Committee on Oversight, Accountability, and Big Tech of the Arizona House of Representatives, chaired by Rep. Alex Kolodin.
Sauer, the former solicitor general of Missouri, frequently refers to the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing & Analysis Center (EI-ASAC) and the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the Secretary of State's interaction with them and other federal level groups in his testimony.
The EI-ISAC claims to be “a community of dedicated election officials and cybersecurity professionals working side-by-side to ensure the integrity of elections among U.S. State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial (SLTT) governments.”
CISA describes itself as the nation's “cyber and infrastructure security agency, designed not to be another government bureaucracy but something much more akin to a public/private collaborative.”
In truth, according to Sauer and other critics, EI-ASAC and CISA became little more than arms of the government intent on squelching “core political speech,” through private companies at the behest of Hobbs and other political actors.
“…What's being flagged in those emails is absolutely core political speech, including core political speech of your direct political opponents,” testified Sauer.