The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Monday regarding whether the Biden administration violated the First Amendment in its efforts to combat misinformation on social media platforms. This case is part of a series of cases this term that will determine the boundaries of free speech in the internet age.
The case originated from government officials urging social media platforms to remove posts related to topics such as coronavirus vaccines, election fraud claims, and Hunter Biden’s laptop. Last year, a federal appeals court limited such interactions, leading to the current Supreme Court review.
Alex Abdo, a lawyer with the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, emphasized the importance of the case in determining the government’s power to influence social media platforms in censoring speech. He highlighted the need for the Supreme Court to clarify the line between coercion and persuasion in this context.
This case is part of a larger discussion on the government’s authority over major technology platforms. The court recently set rules on government officials blocking users from private social media accounts and considered laws in Florida and Texas limiting social media companies’ editorial judgments.
Another case on Monday will address a related constitutional question about government power and free speech, this time involving a state official in New York and the National Rifle Association.
The current case, Murthy v. Missouri, involves attorneys general from Missouri and Louisiana, along with individuals who claim their speech was censored by government officials pressuring social media platforms to remove content. A federal appeals court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that government officials likely overstepped constitutional boundaries in their attempts to influence platform content.
The Biden administration filed an emergency application to pause the injunction, arguing that the government has the right to express its views and persuade others to take action. However, lawyers for the states argued that the administration’s actions violated the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court granted the administration’s application and will hear the case, with three justices dissenting. Justice Alito expressed concerns about government censorship of private speech and the potential implications of the court’s decision.
The case will have significant implications for the balance of power between the government and technology platforms in the realm of free speech, setting a precedent for future interactions between government officials and social media companies.
