Missouri AG Announces Bullshit Censorial Investigation Into Media Matters Over Its Speech

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is currently engaged in numerous legal battles over speech which can more or less be summarized as criticism of people Andrew Bailey likes is censorship," but criticism of people Andrew Bailey doesn't like is good and just and important to the marketplace of ideas."

Andrew Bailey is a hypocrite.

But that's no surprise.

What's worth calling out, however, is just how hypocritical Missouri AG Andrew Bailey is, and how he, while pretending to be a supporter of free speech, is abusing the power of his office to suppress speech he disagrees with and to silence voices.

While he wasn't Attorney General when the lawsuit began, Bailey is currently leading the Missouri v. Biden case, which the Supreme Court is about to hear an important piece of in the renamed Murthy v. Missouri. That case raises serious questions regarding the boundaries of where the government can seek to pressure others regarding free speech. As I've discussed in detail, I agree that the government should not be pressuring anyone to be silenced. But there need to be clear rules to determine the difference between mere persuasion and information sharing, and coercion and intimidation.

But it's important to be clear on what Bailey/Missouri's position in this case is: it's that any efforts by government officials to challenge the speech of anyone is an inherent violation of the 1st Amendment.

Except, that seems to only apply to cases where the government is run by Democrats and they are criticizing Republicans. When the scenarios reverse, AG Bailey seems to have a very different take. This has been true for a while. For example, we noted that Bailey had no problem the very day after he received an early victory in the Missouri v. Biden case, publicly threatening the retailer Target over its support of an LGBT organization.

Having gotten away with that, Bailey is taking this kind of thing up a notch. We had mentioned a few weeks ago that he had tweeted about how he was looking into" whether or not Media Matters engaged in fraud in response to that organization's article highlighting that big name advertisers had ads appear next to blatant neo-Nazi content.

And this week, Bailey announced a more formal investigation, sending a letter to Media Matter's executive director that is so batshit crazy that it should call into question the competency of anyone who voted for Bailey. Bailey also tweeted about the investigation, which makes him sound even more ridiculous, because he's literally admitting that he's doing this investigation to protect ExTwitter which he (laughably) claims is the last platform dedicated to free speech in America."

It's not even close to that, and I'll note that this suggests Donald Trump's own Truth Social is not viewed positively by Bailey.

But, again, remember, Elon Musk's own lawsuit against Media Matters admits that Media Matters' report was 100% true. He merely disputes that the ad/content combination that Media Matters reported on was common. But, Media Matters did not claim that the combination was common, just that they saw it. And the lawsuit admits that the organization did. He just doesn't like it.

Nor does Bailey.

So here, we have Bailey launching an investigation into a private organization over its speech criticizing another private organization. That's way more of a 1st Amendment violation than the White House sending a note to Twitter telling them of someone impersonating a politician and asking if it violates Twitter's policies.

But, more ridiculously, Bailey claims that this obvious attack on free speech (using the taxpayer-funded, power of the government to intimidate and stifle speech he doesn't like) is somehow in support of free speech. Here's Bailey's statement:

We have reason to believe Media Matters used fraud to solicit donations from Missourians in order to bully advertisers into pulling out of X, the last platform dedicated to free speech in America....

Enemies of free speech are attempting to kill X because they cannot control it, and we are not going to let Missourians be subject to fraud in the process.

I'm fighting to ensure progressive tyrants masquerading as news outlets cannot manipulate the marketplace in order to wipe out free speech.

It's that last line that's really telling. He admits that his effort here is based on ideology and is an attempt to attack an ideology he disagrees with. He is publicly admitting his desire here is to suppress speech from those he disagrees with. The claim that it is manipulating the market" is also quite telling. What Bailey is really admitting is that he does not believe in the marketplace of ideas, because if progressives are allowed to speak, they might convince people of their views - something Bailey is publicly admitting is unacceptable.

Imagine if a Democratic AG did the same thing to Fox News. Or the Daily Caller. Or the NY Post. Or the Federalist. People would be rightly up in arms about this being a violation of the 1st Amendment. Because it would be.

Bailey's letter to Angelo Carusone at Media Matters is even dumber.

I have reason to believe that your firm's alleged actions may have violated Missouri consumer protection laws, including laws that prohibit nonprofit entities from soliciting funds under false pretenses. E.g., Mo. Rev. Stat. 407.020.1. I am especially concerned that Media Matters' actions, if proven true, have hampered free speech by targeting an expressly pro free speech social media platform in an attempt to cause it financial harm while defrauding Missourians in the process.

Does anyone think Bailey could find a single person who donated to Media Matters and feels defrauded based on the organization's report about ads next to Nazi content?

The demands from Bailey are intrusive, intimidating, and a clear attempt to suppress anyone else's future attempts to investigate or publicly criticize Musk. He demands that Media Matters preserve all sorts of internal, editorial discussions that are none of his fucking business:

• Communications with third parties regarding your strategy to target advertisers on X, formerly known as Twitter, and your efforts to manipulate those advertisers into pulling their ads from the platform.
• Communications with IBM, Lions Gate Entertainment, Apple, Disney, Warner Brothers Discovery, Paramount Gold, NBCUniversal, Comcast, Sony, Ubisoft and Wal-Mart regarding your strategy to target advertisers on X, formerly known as Twitter, and your efforts to manipulate those advertisers into pulling their ads from the platform.
• Internal communications regarding your policies, strategies or operations related to generating stories or content intended to cancel," deplatform," demonetize," or otherwise interfere with businesses or organizations located in Missouri, or utilized by Missouri residents.
• Communications and documents related to soliciting charitable funds from residents of Missouri in relation to the webpage at the URL stated above.

Again, imagine if California's Attorney General, Rob Bonta, demanded the same of the Federalist? The entire GOP would scream loudly (and, for once, accurately) about it being a clear and obvious attempt to influence and intimidate critical media coverage.

Yet, I'll bet that not a single GOP or GOP-supporting site, which claims to be about free speech, will call out this move by Bailey.

But, really, it's quite incredible how Bailey's views are so different depending on the type of speech. When the government is concerned about speech he likes, it's censorship. When a private entity says stuff he dislikes, he'll mobilize the vast investigatory powers of his state to intimidate and threaten them into silence.

Andrew Bailey is no friend to free speech.