The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge on June 26 regarding the federal government’s communications with social media platforms about public health issues amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
The justices voted 6–3 to find that those challenging the government lacked legal standing to do so.
The states contended that the federal government pressured social media companies to censor unpopular viewpoints on critical public issues, including COVID-19 vaccine side effects and pandemic lockdowns. They argued that such coercion violates the First Amendment.
Conservatives and critics have voiced concerns that social media platforms censor discussions on transgender issues, COVID-19, and the 2020 election. They are especially worried about the handling of Hunter Biden’s laptop, which they argue contained information that could have negatively impacted President Joe Biden’s 2020 election campaign if it had been widely shared.
Some on the left say removing posts on social media is necessary to prevent the spread of misinformation, and some have complained that social media platforms don’t do enough to combat falsehoods.
The case is Murthy v. Missouri. The majority opinion was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Dr. Vivek Murthy, the U.S. Surgeon General, filed a petition. Missouri and other parties sued the federal government for allegedly pressuring social media companies to censor specific content.
During oral arguments on March 18, Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga said that “government censorship has no place in our democracy.”
The evidence shows that there was “unrelenting pressure by the government to coerce social media platforms to suppress the speech of millions of Americans,” he said.
The federal district court described the government’s behavior as “the most massive attack against free speech in American history, including the censorship of renowned scientists opining in their areas of expertise.”
“The government’s levers of pressure are anathema to the First Amendment,” Mr. Aguiñaga said.
He said this wasn’t the government using its platform to rally Americans behind a cause, but rather just bullying.
Brian Fletcher, principal deputy solicitor general of the United States, acknowledged that the government “may not use coercive threats to suppress speech,” but argued it was “entitled to speak for itself by informing, persuading, or criticizing private speakers.”
There is a “fundamental distinction between persuasion and coercion,” he added.
In this instance, Missouri and Louisiana, along with five individuals, are attempting to utilize the federal courts to “to audit all of the executive branch’s communications with social media platforms,” Mr. Fletcher said.
Developing story…
Share your thoughts by scrolling down to leave a comment.
