Connect with us

Southwest

Supreme Court to decide if tech companies can censor what you post on the internet

Published

on

Supreme Court to decide if tech companies can censor what you post on the internet

Join Fox News for access to this content

Plus get unlimited access to thousands of articles, videos and more with your free account!

Please enter a valid email address.

By entering your email, you are agreeing to Fox News Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. To access the content, check your email and follow the instructions provided.

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in the most significant free speech case since the 1960s on Monday, Feb. 26. The dispute comes down to one question: Do Big Tech companies have a constitutional right to censor other people? 

Advertisement

The court will hear two connected free speech cases. The broader of the two, NetChoice v Paxton, stems from a challenge of the Texas law which protects its residents from Big Tech censorship. The other important case, Moody v NetChoice, was also brought by Big Tech to challenge a Florida law which prohibits Big Tech censorship of political figures.

The Media Research Center has now documented more than 6,400 cases of censorship by firms such as Amazon, Google/YouTube, and Meta — including the egregious suppression of the New York Post Biden laptop story ahead of the 2020 election. To protect Texans from Big Tech’s abuses of power, Texas enacted a new “common carrier law.” 

JOHN OLIVER OFFERS JUSTICE THOMAS MILLIONS TO ‘GET THE F— OFF THE SUPREME COURT’

Common carriership is a longstanding legal concept for private companies which hold themselves out as “open to the public” and also control access to other markets. Common carrier laws have existed for centuries, covering utilities, telecommunications firms and railroads.  

Many believe Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas helped set in motion the challenge to Big Tech censorship with comments he made. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Advertisement

A common carrier is forbidden from denying service to or discriminating against its customers. While it was already broadly understood this category included large social media platforms, Texas eliminated any doubt by explicitly classifying them as such.  

Under its trade association NetChoice, Big Tech has advanced a profoundly silly argument for why courts should block the Texas law. Big Tech claims that, by barring social media platforms from subjectively banning users, Texas is compelling the platforms “to speak” against their will. 

Big Tech now begs the court to create a constitutional right to censor, immunizing discrimination —- a right that would apply even if a platform’s stated goal was to manipulate elections or target people by race and religion.  

If courts accept Big Tech’s arguments, it would mean that notoriously anti-Israel Google could have an unlimited constitutional right to ban Jewish Americans from posting videos on YouTube. If this sounds far-fetched, keep in mind that Facebook has already banned several Punjabi-American Sikhs from the platform specifically because of their racial and religious identity.  

To be clear, any of the Big Tech firms covered by the Texas law can choose to stop being common carriers whenever they like. All they would have to do is say that they are publishers, no different than newspaper or book editors and entirely protected by the First Amendment. Being a publisher, though, means accepting liability for the content on their sites.  

Advertisement

Of course, platforms like YouTube and Facebook know many of their users are uploading defamatory, fraudulent and even violent content, and they do not want to face any responsibility for that. Therefore, instead of choosing to be publishers, they are asking activist judges to let them enjoy all the benefits of being a common carrier (total immunity for customers’ conduct) while avoiding any of the responsibility (the obligation not to discriminate).   

The Fifth Circuit rightly rejected Big Tech’s laughable argument, saying that it was “staggering” for “platforms [to] argue that buried somewhere in the person’s enumerated right to free speech lies a corporation’s unenumerated right to muzzle speech.” Nevertheless, there is a genuine danger that the Supreme Court will side with Big Tech and rewrite the Constitution to enshrine censorship.  

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

One justice who is unlikely to join in such an effort is Justice Clarence Thomas. Many believe the Texas law was, in part, inspired by an opinion he wrote in 2021, where he remarked that “[i]n many ways, digital platforms that hold themselves out to the public resemble traditional common carriers” because they “are at bottom communications networks, and they ‘carry’ information from one user to another.”  

The New York Post’s bombshell reporting during the 2020 presidential election was one of many topics heavily censored by Big Tech. (Getty images  |  New York Post)

Advertisement

Justice Elena Kagan, an appointee of then-President Barack Obama, joined Thomas in contending (unsuccessfully) that the Texas law should have remained in place while the court decides its fate. A justice is unlikely to allow a law to go into effect if she believes that, on appeal, it will be ruled unconstitutional. 

While Kagan may surprise court observers by siding with Texans’ free speech rights, Justice Brett Kavanaugh remains an enigma. When he was a circuit court judge, Kavanaugh claimed some common carriers possess “editorial discretion” to censor in violation of federal law. If Kavanaugh still believes in this invisible “editorial discretion” loophole to duly enacted civil rights statutes, then he could well side with Big Tech against free speech. 

 

If Kavanaugh and four other justices take this drastic step, the ramifications for America will be devastating. Only once in history has the Supreme Court limited a common carrier law. That was in the now discredited Plessy v. Ferguson case, where the Supreme Court allowed a railroad to deny service to a Black man.  

Choosing to uphold Texas’s free speech law ought not to be difficult for the Supreme Court. Centuries of precedent reiterate that Americans’ fundamental liberties can be protected with common carrier laws. It would be much better for the justices to follow these rulings rather than create a new constitutional right for the world’s largest corporations to discriminate.   

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM DAN SCHNEIDER

Tim Kilcullen is counsel for investigations at the Media Research Center.

Read the full article from Here

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Southwest

Jasmine Crockett reveals Colbert hasn’t invited her on show since furor over Talarico interview

Published

on

Jasmine Crockett reveals Colbert hasn’t invited her on show since furor over Talarico interview

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, revealed Friday she’s still not been asked to appear on Stephen Colbert’s “Late Show,” days after the host claimed pressure from the Federal Communications Commission effectively censored an interview with her Senate primary political opponent, James Talarico.

Earlier this week, Colbert said CBS prevented the broadcast of Talarico’s appearance due to guidance from the FCC requiring shows to provide “equal time” to opposing candidates.

In response, the late-night host criticized the FCC and his own network. The Talarico interview was posted online, where it has garnered more than 8 million views on YouTube alone. The tumult and extra attention to the interview helped raise more than $2.5 million for Talarico’s campaign.

“No, I’ve not been invited on Colbert prior to his interview nor post his interview,” Crockett said on MS NOW’s “Morning Joe” Friday.

Advertisement

Rep. Jasmine Crockett speaks to members of the media following a House Oversight and Accountability Committee deposition in New Albany, Ohio, on Wednesday, Feb. 18. (Dustin Franz/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Crockett explained that while she has appeared on Colbert’s show twice before, she has not been invited since she launched her candidacy for the U.S. Senate.

“The only information that I got was after this debacle took place, I did receive a phone call from the parent company,” Crockett said.

She said that CBS representatives told her they did not tell Colbert he couldn’t air the Talarico segment. Instead, they said that if he had Talarico on, he had to offer the same time to Crockett.

COLBERT FUMES AT CBS, SAYS IT BARRED HIM FROM INTERVIEWING TEXAS DEM AMID FCC CRACKDOWN

Advertisement

Texas state Rep. James Talarico, left, and Rep. Jasmine Crockett, both Democrats and U.S. Senate candidates, participate in a debate during the 2026 Texas AFL-CIO COPE Convention in Georgetown, Texas, on Jan. 24. (Bob Daemmrich/The Texas Tribune/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“They just said, if you air it, just make sure that you offer the representative equal time. Now, obviously, I wasn’t engaged in that conversation, so I cannot confirm the veracity of any statements,” she said. 

“But I can confirm that I had never been asked to go on as it relates to kind of talking about the Senate race,” Crockett added.

CBS released a statement denying it censored Colbert, insisting the show chose to share the interview on YouTube instead to avoid the equal-time requirement.

‘THE VIEW’ PANEL ERUPTS AS GUEST DEFENDS TRUMP AGAINST RACISM CLAIMS

Advertisement

Texas state Rep. James Talarico appears with Stephen Colbert on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” in New York on Feb. 16. (Scott Kowalchyk/CBS via Getty Images)

However, during Monday night’s broadcast, Colbert insisted he and his guest were being censored, telling his audience, “[Talarico] was supposed to be here, but we were told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast.”

The media attention and Colbert’s multiple segments this week about the controversy provided a boon to Talarico’s campaign. On Tuesday, Colbert crumpled up the CBS statement denying it had forced the comedian not to air the interview and put it into a dog waste bag before throwing it away.

On Wednesday, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr dismissed the controversy as a “hoax,” stating that Talarico “took advantage of all of your sort of prior conceptions to run the hoax, apparently for the purpose of raising money and getting clicks. And the news media played right into it.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

A spokesperson for Colbert’s show didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.

Related Article

Crockett disputes opponent's denial of 'mediocre Black man' comment, calls out 'well-intentioned White folk'

Read the full article from Here

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Southwest

Crockett blasts ‘left’ for alleged skin darkening in ads as Texas Senate clash heats up

Published

on

Crockett blasts ‘left’ for alleged skin darkening in ads as Texas Senate clash heats up

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A progressive House Democrat claims that attacks from her left were racially motivated in what’s become an explosive Texas Senate race.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, told supporters that she’s used to attacks from Republicans and the right, but racially tinged shots from her left flank weren’t something she expected.

“The thing that is not normal is for me to be attacked from the left,” Crockett said. “That is the new wild card in this scenario. But it’s just interesting.”

Rep. Jasmine Crockett speaks to members of the media following a House Oversight and Accountability Committee deposition in New Albany, Ohio, Feb. 18.  (Dustin Franz/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Advertisement

“And you know, I’ve been asked a couple of times about it,” she continued. “And you know, I look at this specifically as a civil rights lawyer, and I see when they’re sending out ads and they’re darkening my skin. And I’m just like, I know what this is, right?”

Crockett did not get into specifics about which ads she was referencing or who was behind them.

Fox News Digital reached out to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Crockett’s Senate campaign for comment but did not immediately hear back.

It’s another instance in the Democratic primary for Texas’ Senate seat between Crockett and Texas state Rep. James Talarico in which race has again been jolted into the conversation.

JASMINE CROCKETT HITS BACK AT LIBERAL CRITICS OF HER SENATE BID, SUGGESTS THEY MIGHT BE GETTING PAID

Advertisement

Rep. James Talarico appears with Stephen Colbert on the CBS series “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” in New York Feb. 16, 2026.  (Scott Kowalchyk/CBS via Getty Images)

Before the latest drama over Talarico’s appearance on Stephen Colbert’s “The Late Show,” which Crockett said she has not received an invitation to since launching her Senate campaign, the state lawmaker was embroiled in another back-and-forth with his former opponent.

Before Crockett entered the contest, Talarico was running against former Rep. Collin Allred, D-Texas, who was again vying for the Senate after losing to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, in 2024.

Allred exited the race in December 2025 but earlier in February alleged that Talarico had referred to him as a “mediocre Black man” in reference to his campaign against the former lawmaker.

CORNYN WARNS PAXTON WOULD BE ‘KISS OF DEATH’ FOR GOP AS BLOODY PRIMARY RACE RAMPS UP

Advertisement

Talarico pushed back against the allegation in a statement to the Texas Tribune at the time and said that he would “never attack him on the basis of race.”

“As a Black man in America, Congressman Allred has had to work twice as hard to get where he is,” Talarico said. “I understand how my critique of the congressman’s campaign could be interpreted given this country’s painful legacy of racism, and I care deeply about the impact my words have on others. Despite our disagreements, I deeply respect Congressman Allred. We’re all on the same team.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Early voting already is underway in Texas, with primary election day right around the corner on March 3. 

Who either Crockett or Talarico will face in November remains in the air, given the three-way Republican primary battle among Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Rep. Wesley Hunt, R-Texas.

Advertisement

Related Article

Democratic Senate candidate calls national party 'condescending,' hostile toward faith in red states

Read the full article from Here

Continue Reading

Southwest

Jury convicts former NFL player Keith J Gray in $328 million Medicare fraud scheme involving kickbacks

Published

on

Jury convicts former NFL player Keith J Gray in 8 million Medicare fraud scheme involving kickbacks

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Former UConn football standout and Texas laboratory owner Keith J. Gray was convicted Thursday for his role in a wide-ranging genetic testing fraud scheme, the Justice Department announced Friday.

According to investigators, the cardiovascular testing scheme generated up to $328 million in fraudulent claims. Gray, who never appeared in a regular season NFL game, owns Axis Professional Labs and Kingdom Health Laboratory.

He was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to pay and receive health care kickbacks, five counts of violating the anti-kickback statute. Gray also faces three counts of money laundering, a news release from the DOJ confirmed.

Advertisement

Texas lab owner and former NFL player Keith J. Gray was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to pay and receive health care kickbacks. Gray faces five counts of violating the anti-kickback statute and three counts of money laundering. (Wesley Hitt/Getty Images)

Prosecutors said Gray knowingly billed Medicare for “medically unnecessary genetic tests designed to evaluate the risk of various cardiovascular diseases and conditions.” According to officials, Gray provided kickbacks in return for referrals of DNA samples and executed test orders authorizing the procedures.

Marketers would seek out Medicare beneficiaries and “doctor chase” to uncover the identity of the beneficiaries’ primary care physicians. Prosecutors said that once an individual’s identity was obtained, a doctor was believed to have been pressured into approving the tests.

Fabricated documents and invoices were used to try and conceal payments that listed charges for “marketing” hours. Another aspect of the operation involved Gray allegedly mischaracterizing the payments as “software” expenses or labeling them as non-existent loans.

Keith Gray of the Carolina Panthers poses for his 2009 NFL headshot at photo day in Charlotte, North Carolina. (NFL Photos )

Advertisement

During the trial, prosecutors presented evidence including text messages between Gray and a co-conspirator. The messages appeared to be enthusiastic exchanges between the two over the anticipation of the money they were gaining from Medicare.

“$ent, you should have it any minute if you don’t already. Get it?” Gray then replied by saying, “Sorry I was filling my bathtub with ones. Yes lol.”

Texas lab owner and former NFL player Keith J. Gray was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to pay and receive health care kickbacks. Gray faces up to 10 years in prison for each count.

Axis and Kingdom billed Medicare an estimated $328 million for false claims, while Medicare paid claims totaling approximately $54 million. A sentencing date for Gray was not immediately announced. He faces up to 10 years in prison for each count.

Advertisement

Gray was a key contributor to the Huskies, starting every game in 2007. He signed with the Carolina Panthers as an undrafted free agent after college.

Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.

Related Article

Judge orders ex-NFL player Darron Lee held without bond as prosecutors weigh death penalty



Read the full article from Here

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending