--:-- [Theme music fades out]
--:-- John Bickley: Welcome to an extra edition of Morning Wire. I'm John Bickley, Editor-in-Chief of the Daily Wire, and I'm joined by Georgia Howe. It's Sunday, March 24th.
--:-- Georgia Howe: That's right, John. Today, we're discussing the Supreme Court's oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri. Joining us is Kerry Severino, President of the Judicial Crisis Network.
--:-- Kerry Severino: Thanks for having me on the show.
--:-- John Bickley: So, let's start with the lower court's ruling. Judge Doughty found that seven groups of Biden administration officials violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media platforms into censorship. Remind us, what exactly did Doughty rule?
--:-- Kerry Severino: So, originally, he said that the federal government had violated the First Amendment because they were encouraging content moderation by these social media platforms, and that made those platforms effectively state actors.
--:-- Georgia Howe: That's right. And I think what's striking about this case is the government's argument that they were merely using their bully pulpit and persuasion with these social media platforms.
--:-- Kerry Severino: Well, it's funny because a lot of the stuff we're talking about, we know the bully pulpit when the president's standing up there talking or his press secretary is giving a speech. But what's happening here is huge amounts of back-and-forth emails behind the scenes.
--:-- John Bickley: And I think that's what's so disturbing about this case. It's not just about the government using their influence to shape public opinion, but also about the government using coercion and intimidation to silence dissenting views.
--:-- Kerry Severino: That's right. And I think the court is grappling with how to distinguish between the government's legitimate role in regulating speech and their illegitimate role in coercing social media platforms into censorship.
--:-- Georgia Howe: And I think that's where the court's skepticism comes in. Some of the justices are questioning whether the government's actions in this case are really any different from their actions in other cases where they're trying to regulate speech.
--:-- Kerry Severino: Exactly. And I think that's why the court is struggling to find a clear standard for when the government's actions cross the line into coercion.
--:-- John Bickley: Now, I know you've said that you believe conservatives will probably lose this case. What makes you say that?
--:-- Kerry Severino: Well, I think it's hard to tell because some of the justices aren't always clear exactly how they're going to rule. But I think another uphill battle here is the fact that there are several members of the court who themselves had worked in state administrations before.
--:-- Georgia Howe: That's right. And I think that's what's so concerning about this case. It's not just about the government's actions, but also about the court's willingness to give the government more power to regulate speech.
--:-- Kerry Severino: That's right. And I think that's why the court is grappling with how to distinguish between the government's legitimate role in regulating speech and their illegitimate role in coercing social media platforms into censorship.
--:-- John Bickley: Now, I know you've also mentioned that the court is struggling to find a clear standard for when the government's actions cross the line into coercion. Can you elaborate on that?
--:-- Kerry Severino: Well, I think the court is looking for a clear and explicit threat by the government. But in this case, the government's actions are more subtle and nuanced.
--:-- Georgia Howe: And I think that's what's so concerning about this case. It's not just about the government's actions, but also about the court's willingness to give the government more power to regulate speech.
--:-- Kerry Severino: That's right. And I think that's why the court is struggling to find a clear standard for when the government's actions cross the line into coercion.
--:-- John Bickley: Now, I know you've also mentioned that the court is grappling with how to distinguish between the government's legitimate role in regulating speech and their illegitimate role in coercing social media platforms into censorship. Can you elaborate on that?
--:-- Kerry Severino: Well, I think the court is trying to find a way to balance the government's legitimate role in regulating speech with their illegitimate role in coercing social media platforms into censorship.
--:-- Georgia Howe: And I think that's what's so concerning about this case. It's not just about the government's actions, but also about the court's willingness to give the government more power to regulate speech.
--:-- Kerry Severino: That's right. And I think that's why the court is struggling to find a clear standard for when the government's actions cross the line into coercion.
--:-- John Bickley: Now, I know you've also mentioned that the court is struggling to find a clear standard for when the government's actions cross the line into coercion. Can you elaborate on that?
--:-- Kerry Severino: Well, I think the court is looking for a clear and explicit threat by the government. But in this case, the government's actions are more subtle and nuanced.
--:-- Georgia Howe: And I think that's what's so concerning about this case. It's not just about the government's actions, but also about the court's willingness to give the government more power to regulate speech.
--:-- Kerry Severino: That's right. And I think that's why the court is struggling to find a clear standard for when the government's actions cross the line into coercion.
--:-- John Bickley: Now, I know you've also mentioned that the court is grappling with how to distinguish between the government's legitimate role in regulating speech and their illegitimate role in coercing social media platforms into censorship. Can you elaborate on that?
--:-- Kerry Severino: Well, I think the court is trying to find a way to balance the government's legitimate role in regulating speech with their illegitimate role in coercing social media platforms into censorship.
--:-- Georgia Howe: And I think that's what's so concerning about this case. It's not just about the government's actions, but also about the court's willingness to give the government more power to regulate speech.
--:-- Kerry Severino: That's right. And I think that's why the court is struggling to find a clear standard for when the government's actions cross the line into coercion.
--:-- John Bickley: Well, as someone working for the Daily Wire, we've experienced firsthand the current environment online, including the role of the State Department in particular, which is why we're suing them on this very issue. So final question on Section 230. There have been a lot of arguments about whether or not it needs to be tweaked or thrown out altogether. Are there some fixes here that could make things a little clearer in terms of how social media platforms operate?
--:-- Kerry Severino: Yeah, Section 230 is like the elephant in the room on so many of these cases. And it's going to be really interesting to see if Congress can get together on even an overwhelming issue, let alone on something that's as controversial as how to navigate this challenging new world of internet regulation.
--:-- Georgia Howe: Well, that's all the time we have for today. Thanks for joining us, Kerry.
--:-- Kerry Severino: Thanks for having me on the show.
--:-- John Bickley: And that was Kerry Severino, President of the Judicial Crisis Network. This has been an extra edition of Morning Wire.
