top of page
Search
CHQ Staff

SCOTUS Punts On Biden Censorship Regime

The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Wednesday to impose limits on the way President Joe Biden's administration may communicate with social media platforms, rejecting a challenge made on free speech grounds to how officials encouraged the removal of posts deemed misinformation, including about elections and COVID.


Reuters reported the justices, in a 6-3 ruling, overturned a lower court's 2023 decision that various federal officials likely violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, which protects against governmental abridgment of free speech, in a case brought by the states of Missouri and Louisiana as well as five individuals.


Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who authored the Supreme Court's ruling, wrote that the two Republican-led states and the other plaintiffs lacked the required legal standing to sue the administration in federal court.


The plaintiffs had argued that the administration violated the rights of social media users whose posts were removed by platforms including Facebook (META.O), opens new tab, YouTube (GOOGL.O), opens new tab, and Twitter, now called X.


Barret wrote that the plaintiffs could not show a "concrete link" between the conduct by the officials and any harm that the plaintiffs suffered. They "emphasize that hearing unfettered speech on social media is critical to their work," Barrett wrote. "But they do not point to any specific instance of content moderation that caused them identifiable harm."


In her opinion, Barrett faulted the evidence provided by each of the plaintiffs and said lower courts had "glossed over complexities." Barrett found that Louisiana-based U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, who issued a preliminary injunction in July 2023, made factual findings that "unfortunately appear to be clearly erroneous."


Reuters reported that Doughty had 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.




In a dissenting opinion, Alito said the court's majority "permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear and think."


As Justice Alito pointed out:


…internet platforms have a powerful incentive to please important federal officials, and the record in this case shows that high-ranking officials skillfully exploited Facebook’s vulnerability. When Facebook did not heed their requests as quickly or as fully as the officials wanted, the platform was publicly accused of “killing people” and subtly threatened with retaliation.

 

Not surprisingly these efforts bore fruit. Facebook adopted new rules that better conformed to the officials’ wishes, and many users who expressed disapproved views about the pandemic or COVID–19 vaccines were “deplatformed” or otherwise injured.


However, the majority did not agree and distinguished the actions in this case from the clearly coercive actions undertaken by New York officials in the National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo case, where it found for the NRA.


While civil libertarians and conservatives who had their posts to social media deleted or throttled were disappointed, the ruling hinged on how far the government went in its efforts to scrub “disinformation” from social media, clearly differentiating using the bully pulpit or “jawboning” companies to adhere to the government’s wishes from ordering censorship of disfavored opinions or information.


And of course, it didn’t help that Leftwing executives at social media companies were looking for excuses to censor opinions that did not comport with their progovernment agenda, so they required little in the way of encouragement to do so.


The Supreme Court has often used the procedural question of “standing” to dispose of cases without ruling on the merits of the claims. The opinion, while definitely setting a high bar for future litigation on the subject of third-party social media censorship, did not foreclose future litigation should the government cross the line into orders or threats to get content it doesn’t like removed.

What is required now are relentless demands for transparency and whistleblowing to alert the public, through freedom of information requests and congressional investigations, should the government move into the prohibited area of coercing third-parties into censoring social media on its behalf. The case was Murthy, Surgeon General, et al. v. Missouri et al.



  • Supreme Court

  • First Amendment

  • Censorship

  • COVID policy

  • Anthony Fauci

  • Social Media platforms

  • misinformation

  • free speech

  • Justice Amy Coney Barrett

  • Facebook

  • Twitter X

  • content moderation

  • conservative speech

  • 2020 Election

  • Justice Samuel Alito dissent

  • third-party social media censorship

  • standing

142 views7 comments

7 comentários


Marko Bolivar
Marko Bolivar
08 de jan.

En jugabet.cl/es/casino/slots, puedes disfrutar de una amplia selección de tragamonedas emocionantes. Con gráficos impresionantes, temáticas variadas y grandes premios, esta plataforma ofrece entretenimiento de alta calidad para los jugadores chilenos.

Curtir

Tannu Rawat
Tannu Rawat
17 de out. de 2024

If you want to meet the hottest Escorts in North Avenue, contact us. We are available 24/7 to support clients to find their dream escort model. Our North Avenue escorts service is famous for discretion and confidentiality.

Curtir

Swarna Yadav
Swarna Yadav
17 de set. de 2024

Guys, every man wants a girl who makes a strong bond with them. If your life is going well and you want some stress-free time and erotic pleasure, our agency is the best option. Our New Delhi Escorts give you the feel of love and romance in the bedroom that you will never get. 


Curtir

flower23 skeinc
flower23 skeinc
28 de jun. de 2024

Although the ruling undoubtedly raised the bar for any legal action on the topic of third-party social media censorship, it did not phrazle exclude further legal action should the government go beyond using threats or orders to have information it disagrees with deleted.

Curtir

startrek3010
27 de jun. de 2024

Another triumph for Chief Justice Roberts . . .

Curtir
bottom of page