Covid and the Court: Why the Supreme Court Should Not Diffuse European Speech Restrictions into American Law

Abstract

Speech constitutes an immense power which, at its best, can lead to open dialogue that creates the opportunity to achieve positive political and social change. At its worst, the freedom to speak can precipitate hate speech and violence. Across the world, the standards governing free speech are not necessarily the same. This article aims to analyze the constructs of free speech in both Europe and the United States. To this end, this article concerns two major questions: should the United States adopt legislation to combat hate speech in line with the Digital Services Act which the European Union previously enacted; and should this be enacted via the Supreme Court’s opinion in Murthy v. Missouri, a case analyzing possible infringement of Free Speech by the federal government on social media sites. This article discusses the nature of how and which comparative law principles and jurisprudence should be diffused into judicial opinions written by U.S. judges. As well as why this issue is not one that should be handled by the courts, especially through the diffusion of European authored regulations on speech.