Dan Schneider is Vice President of MR.

MR.

He has recently authored a commentary in the Washington Times entitled

Supreme Court considers turning First Amendment inside out. The subtitle of that reads,

Is Censorship Constitutionally Protected? Maybe, Mr. Schneider, welcome. Thank you for joining us.

And the Supreme Court just issued a decision in the case

after you wrote your piece. But maybe we will go to the background first by looking at your piece,

and then you can tell us on what the court decided today. You have a co-author in the commentary.

I want to say Tim Kilcullen, who is counsel for free speech America. But we'll jump

right in. You open by stating the Supreme Court will soon issue rulings in two pivotal big tech

disputes about free speech rights. Give us, if you would, an overview of the case, the background of it.

Well, one of the two cases that Tim and I referenced in this piece is the Murphy v. Missouri

case brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana against the Biden administration

because the Biden administration was censoring conservatives. It was pressuring big tech

companies to censor conservatives.

The other case that we referenced, it's actually two cases, the net choice cases,

where big tech is challenging both Florida and Texas laws that are designed to protect

their residents from big tech censorship. But today, we got the

decision on Murphy. And sadly, sadly, the First Amendment has been further abused. We've seen

the court for several decades now chipping away at First Amendment free speech rights.

And again, Amy Coney-Barritt today, writing on behalf of a 6-3 court, ruled.

It's essentially based on a standing argument, but it's more substantive than simply saying that one the that one side lacked standing to bring the action

...