SCOTUS Refuses To Hear Anti-Vax Group’s Claim That Meta’s Private Actions Are 1A Violations
from the go-away dept
Back in the summer of 2020, RFK Jr. was leading the Children’s Health Defense organization, built on an anti-vaccination platform. The organization sued Facebook/Meta that year, along with several fact-checking organizations, for limiting the reach of, and otherwise fact-checking, its posts due to their inclusion of medical and scientific misinformation. CHD argued, in an incredibly stupid filing, that Meta was acting as an arm of the government due to Democratic lawmakers complaining about misinformation being published on the platform and, idiotically, because Section 230 exists. Mike’s takedown of the lawsuit was thorough and complete and very much worth your time if you’re not familiar with this case.
The District Court agreed, tossing this turd in the waste bin. Its explanation was clear: lawmakers complaining about what appears on Meta does not amount to Meta being a state actor, nor does Section 230 existing, and, finally, Meta is a private actor allowed to moderate its own platform as a function of its own speech rights.
That should have been the end of it. Instead, CHD appealed the ruling, making essentially the same arguments, many of which it failed to provide legal precedent and/or any evidence of its claims. The Ninth Circuit ruled against CHD again, and for all the same reasons.
That should have been the end of it… again. Instead, CHD appealed once more to the Supreme Court. A Supreme Court that is chockablock with conservative justices, a third of them appointed by President Trump. At a time when the GOP holds the majority of all branches of government. And, finally, at a time in which RFK Jr. is the head of HHS, having left CHD to pursue his career in federal government.
And with all of those factors in theory lining up in favor of CHD’s lawsuit… even this SCOTUS laughed the appeal out of the room.
The Supreme Court on Monday turned away without comment a claim brought by the group formerly run by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. alleging that its anti-vaccine speech was censored by the social media company Meta Platforms.
The justices left in place lower court rulings that tossed out the lawsuit, which claimed that Facebook, starting in 2019, colluded with the federal government to restrict access to its content. The issue came to a head during the Covid-19 pandemic, with Facebook removing the group’s page in 2022.
That will be the end of this. And hopefully it serves as a lesson to other, like-minded groups out there that don’t seem to understand that free speech laws apply and protect them from government actions, not privately held platforms that in fact have their own free speech rights. If Meta, or other social media groups, want to fact-check your content, take down your pages, or limit the reach of your posts on their platform… well, they can. It’s theirs.
Unfortunately, Kennedy remains free to do his anti-vax, anti-science damage from the halls of government.
Filed Under: content moderation, free speech, rfk jr., supreme court
Companies: children's health defense, meta
Comments on “SCOTUS Refuses To Hear Anti-Vax Group’s Claim That Meta’s Private Actions Are 1A Violations”
only took six years…
Only brain worms believed social media was censoring.
Re:
They don’t believe it. It’s what they want you to believe.
The absurdity is that this isn’t really a win at all in the context that Junior can now dispense his propaganda from an official government source. It’s like seeing a murderer get convicted and then end up as the trial court judge a few years later.
Re:
Isn’t that pretty much what Trump did?
Blocked from the soapbox, made head of the soapbox factory
What do you know, SCOTUS can still say no to very specific people…
Well darn, now RFK Jr can’t push his anti-vax/pro-plague narrative on facebook and he’s limited to just using the top medical position in the country to do so, one that, among other things grants him the ability to hand pick the group that determines what vaccines will and will not be covered by insurance.
What a terrible loss for the pro-plaguers.
Since they were alleging that these essentially were government actions, it’s a bit much to claim that they don’t understand that free speech laws protect them from government actions.
99% of cases are denied cert. If that constitutes laughing an appeal out of the room, SCOTUS sure does a lot of laughing.
Re:
Such an absurd allegation requires a lack of understanding about free speech and government vs private actors. It’s proof that they don’t understand free speech laws. That’s like saying, “well they thought they could fly when they jumped off the roof, so why would you insult them by saying they thought they could fly?!?”
SCOTUS does a lot of laughing. But you’re missing the context of the comment. It’s telling that SCOTUS, which has a recent history of taking up bad cases and rendering bad judgments, thought this bad case was so bad it wasn’t worth addressing.