Let's consider.

Next week, the Supreme Court hears arguments in Murthy v. Missouri over a major free speech issue. The question is whether the federal government can, directly or indirectly, impose itself on social media companies to game their policies in a particular way according to policy priorities of the government itself.

The First Amendment suggests the answer is no. It says that government cannot impose laws "prohibiting the free exercise" or otherwise "abridging the freedom of speech." Social media is all about speech. For government to game the system in its favor is a major intervention in rights that are supposed to be guaranteed by the government.

This principle has been routinely tested from the early years. The Sedition Act of 1798 targeted newspaper editors who criticized the president. There was outrage about that and it swept Thomas Jefferson into office who repealed the cursed thing.

That was hardly the end. Censorship was tried again in 1835, 1861, 1918, 1940, 1954, and so on, and each time the First Amendment eventually prevailed. And yet underlying this long experience is always the push by government to control the channels of distribution of information.

Now that every citizen is in a position to be a distributor of information to a broad audience via new technologies, we have government exercising its penchant to want to control. The Constitution of the United States, unique in the world for this protection of free speech, stands against this.

That seems rather simple. Surely the court will agree.