This chapter explores a mock trial scenario addressing the complexities of free speech, misinformation, and government interactions on social media platforms. Experts provide varying perspectives on allegations of coercion, public-private cooperation, and speech suppression, emphasizing the importance of balancing diverse viewpoints with factual accuracy and government influence. The discussion dissects the implications of a potential court ruling against government requests to remove political speech online, touching on issues of communication integrity, national security, and the role of the judiciary in safeguarding against government overreach.
The Supreme Court will soon decide on a case whether government interference on social media is coercive and suppresses free speech. Those who argue legitimate cooperation say that where misinformation threatens public health or safety, they are justified to protect the public. Those argue coercion believe that increased content moderation could lead to authoritarian control over public discourse online. Now we debate: Mock Trial: Free Speech, Government, and Misinformation on Social Media Platforms.
Plaintiff: Charles "Chip" Miller, Senior Attorney at the Institute for Free Speech
Defendant: Rylee Sommers-Flanagan, Founder and Executive Director of Upper Seven Law
Cross examiners: Nina Jankowicz, CEO of The American Sunlight Project; Former Executive Director of the Department of Homeland Security's Disinformation Governance Board
Matt Taibbi, Best-selling Author and Journalist; Writer and Publisher of Racket News
Eric Schurenberg, Business Journalist and Media Executive; Founder of the Alliance for Trust in Media
Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices