Gorsuch, J., concurring in judgment
they say in concert with a foreign adversary. “Those who won our independence” knew the vital importance of the “freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think,” as well as the dangers that come with repressing the free flow of ideas. Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 375 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring). They knew, too, that except in the most extreme situations, “the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.” Ibid. Too often in recent years, the government has sought to censor disfavored speech online, as if the internet were somehow exempt from the full sweep of the First Amendment. See, e.g., Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U. S. 43, 76–78 (2024) (Alito, J., dissenting). But even as times and technologies change, “the principle of the right to free speech is always the same.” Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 628 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting).
Second, I am pleased that the Court declines to consider the classified evidence the government has submitted to us but shielded from petitioners and their counsel. Ante, at 13, n. 3. Efforts to inject secret evidence into judicial proceedings present obvious constitutional concerns. Usually, “the evidence used to prove the Government’s case must be disclosed to the individual so that he has an opportunity to show that it is untrue.” Greene v. McElroy, 360 U. S. 474, 496 (1959). Maybe there is a way to handle classified evidence that would afford a similar opportunity in cases like these. Maybe, too, Congress or even the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure would profit from considering the question. Cf. United States v. Zubaydah, 595 U. S. 195, 245 (2022) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting). But as the Court recognizes, we have no business considering the government’s secret evidence here.
Third, I harbor serious reservations about whether the law before us is “content neutral” and thus escapes “strict scrutiny.” See ante, at 9–12; Brief for Petitioners in No. 24–656, pp. 25–31; Brief for Petitioners in No. 24–657, pp. 24–26; Reply Brief in No. 24–656, pp. 10–12; Reply Brief in No.
