A new court action in Murthy v. Missouri places rare limits on government influence over online speech—raising major implications for free expression and access to health information.
Listen to the audio version of this article:
THE TOPLINE
- A proposed consent decree would restrict certain federal agencies from pressuring major social media platforms to suppress protected speech, creating a narrow but enforceable check if approved by the court.
- The move follows the Supreme Court’s 2024 refusal to rule on the case’s core First Amendment issues, leaving the core First Amendment questions unresolved.
- For health freedom advocates, the case highlights how pushing only “acceptable” narratives can suppress legitimate scientific debate and erode public trust.
A new settlement in the litigation that reached the Supreme Court as Murthy v. Missouri has placed meaningful—but limited—constraints on the government’s ability to influence online speech, marking a notable development in the fight over censorship during the COVID era. The operative restrictions apply only to the Surgeon General, CDC, and CISA; they cover only the plaintiffs, and they are limited to the plaintiffs’ content. They do not apply to social media users’ speech.
A Partial Course Correction
After the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule on the core First Amendment issues in the case—finding the plaintiffs lacked standing—a lower court has now stepped in with a consent decree restricting how federal agencies interact with social media companies.
The order bars key agencies from pressuring platforms to remove or suppress lawful speech under threat of regulatory or legal consequences. While it applies only to the plaintiffs, if approved, it would create a rare enforceable limit on coercive government pressure in this context.
Commenting on the decree, Jonathan Emord, ANH-USA General Counsel, said, “During the pandemic, the White House, CDC, DHS, CISA, Office of the Surgeon General of the United States, HHS, and FTC all coerced and cajoled social media platforms (Meta, Twitter/X, YouTube/Google, etc.) to alter their content moderation policies to censor criticism of government narratives on vaccine safety, lockdown effectiveness, and the origins of the virus. I was among those whose statements were censored, repeatedly. These First Amendment violations are the most sweeping and extensive in American history. They are more substantial than those imposed by the federal government in the Alien and Sedition Acts (1791); the Espionage Act of 1917; the Sedition Act of 1918; and the Alien Registration Act of 1940.
“Although the product of a consent decree, and therefore carrying less weight than a decision on the merits,” Emord continued, “the Murthy v. Missouri decree reveals that the current Department of Justice recognizes the federal government violated the First Amendment when its agents induced social media platforms to engage in censorship, shadow banning, visibility demotion, and algorithmic suppression in an effort to deny public access to content critical of government.”
Rob Verkerk, Ph.D, ANH-USA executive and scientific director, commented: “Science evolves through challenge, scrutiny, and open exchange—not through algorithmic suppression of views that fall outside the approved narrative. Social media—one of the most important sources of information for most Americans—must remain a forum for legitimate scientific debate, especially when evidence is still emerging.” Verkerk added, “When emerging science is filtered through censorship rather than debate, truth is not protected—it is delayed.”
Why It Matters
At issue is whether the government can sidestep the First Amendment by leaning on private companies to censor certain speech.
During the pandemic, officials defended these efforts as necessary to combat “misinformation.” But many viewpoints initially dismissed as misinformation—such as on the SARS-CoV-2 origins, lockdowns, immunity, and vaccine risks—later became subjects of legitimate scientific and public debate as evidence evolved.
And that’s the whole point: science advances through debate and dialogue, not through the enforcement of orthodoxy and removal of free speech.
Beyond COVID
This isn’t just about pandemic policy. The same dynamics affect broader health debates—from nutrition and supplements to chronic disease prevention—where non-mainstream perspectives are often marginalized.
For ANH-USA, this case reinforces a major concern: control over information is power. If you can control the information people are exposed to (and social media is now for many Americans the most important information provider), you can control how they think. We believe it is precisely this kind of control that helps keep natural medicine on the margins of healthcare: because the law prevents us from learning about the benefits of supplements, we’re conditioned to think that only drugs can treat or prevent disease when this is far from the case.
The Bottom Line
The Murthy decree is a step in the right direction, but the relief is very narrow, it affects a clutch of Bit Tech social media platforms, and it leaves major questions unresolved. Without a definitive ruling on the constitutional issues, the door remains open to future overreach.
If trust in public health is to be rebuilt, it won’t come from tighter control of information—but from allowing open, even uncomfortable, debate.
If you haven’t already, sign our FreeSpeech4Health petition to fight against censorship and shadowbanning.
