Today’s ruling in Murthy v. Missouri affirms what many have been saying since the beginning: This case should never have been brought. The original lawsuit filed by the AG of Missouri was filled with inaccuracies and baseless speculation—so much so that the court went out of its way to note that the evidence in the case was “murky” at best and that a number of the lower courts’ key findings were “clearly erroneous.” From selectively misquoting researchers to misrepresenting how information was tagged, these inaccuracies formed the basis of much of the complaint. Though the case centered on the federal government’s actions, it also falsely claimed that independent researchers carried out censorship activity on behalf of the government.
Not only did the court see through these false claims, it also reaffirmed that technology researchers are independent actors who have a right under the First Amendment to research and investigate a variety of topics, to collaborate with other scholars and organizations, and to communicate their findings to the public, to companies, and to the government. Ultimately, these freedoms empower researchers to contribute to the public good and our self-governance. They also help Americans make sense of some of the most pressing societal challenges, like the impacts that social media has on our elections and the health and well-being of our children and our communities – which even the dissent acknowledged is one of the most important roles of free speech.
There is more to be done. This lawsuit and related efforts to smear researchers and scientists have seriously damaged our country’s ability to tackle important issues like natural disasters, major health events, and foreign influence in our elections. But today’s ruling is a meaningful step towards vindicating the work of independent experts and, hopefully, deters attempts to use future cases that are weak on facts and heavy on conjecture to silence rigorous study of how information – and disinformation – moves across the Internet. Today’s decision sends a clear message that the justice system requires proof, not just political posturing.
Read the decision here.
Read the Coalition for Independent Technology Research’s amicus brief here.