Supreme Court scrutinizes US government contacts with social media
platforms
Send a link to a friend
[March 18, 2024]
By Andrew Chung and John Kruzel
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday marches back
into the battle over social media content moderation in a challenge on
free speech grounds to how President Joe Biden's administration
encouraged platforms to remove posts that federal officials deemed
misinformation, including about elections and COVID-19.
The justices are set to hear arguments in the administration's appeal of
a lower court's preliminary injunction constraining how White House and
certain other federal officials communicate with social media platforms.
The Republican-led states of Missouri and Louisiana, along with five
individual social media users, sued the administration. They argued that
the government's actions violated the U.S. Constitution's First
Amendment free speech rights of users whose posts were removed from
platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, now called X.
The case tests whether the administration crossed the line from mere
communication and persuasion to strong arming or coercing platforms -
sometimes called "jawboning" - to unlawfully censor disfavored speech,
as lower courts found.
Biden's administration has argued that officials sought to mitigate the
hazards of online misinformation, including false information about
vaccines during the pandemic that they said was causing preventable
deaths, by alerting social media companies to content that violated the
platforms' own policies.
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2024/Mar/18/images/ads/current/castlemanor_sda_FINANCIAL_2017.png)
The justices in February heard arguments in another social media case
over whether to uphold laws passed in Texas and Florida that would
restrict the content moderation practices of platforms.
The Republican backers of those laws have voiced concern over what they
portray as bias against conservative voices on these platforms. Many
researchers, as well as liberals and Democrats, have warned of the
dangers of social media platforms amplifying misinformation and
disinformation about public health, vaccines and election fraud.
In the case being argued on Monday, the plaintiffs have argued that
platforms suppressed conservative-leaning speech, which they attribute
to government coercion, a form of state action barred by the First
Amendment.
[to top of second column]
|
![](../images/031824PIX/news_d7.jpg)
The United States Supreme Court building is seen in Washington,
U.S., February 29, 2024. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2017/Jul/22/images/ads/current/rohlfs_lda_072017.png)
The Supreme Court in October put the lower court's injunction on
hold pending the review of the case by the justices.
The Justice Department said that government officials, including
presidents, long have used the bully pulpit to express views and to
inform on matters of public concern.
It also said that private entities that make decisions on that
information are not state actors as long as they are not threatened
with adverse consequences. The department also said that an
injunction limiting the administration's actions could chill vital
government communications, including to protect national security.
The plaintiffs sued officials and agencies across the federal
government, including in the White House, FBI, surgeon general's
office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
Louisiana-based U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty issued a
preliminary injunction in July 2023. Doughty concluded that the
plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the government
helped suppress "disfavored conservative speech" on mask-wearing,
lockdowns and vaccines intended as public health measures during the
pandemic, or that questioned the validity of the 2020 election in
which Biden, a Democrat, defeated Donald Trump, a Republican.
The injunction barred an array of government officials from
communicating with platforms regarding content moderation, such as
urging the deletion of certain posts.
The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently
narrowed that order.
The Supreme Court's ruling is expected by the end of June.
(Reporting by Andrew Chung and John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham)
[© 2024 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.]This material
may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.
![](http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/2024/Mar/18/images/ads/current/ldn_smallsda_BUSINESSMAG_2023.png) |