Does the federal government use its influence on social media firm repression policies? If so, how many? What if the safety of the country is in danger? What if some of the restricted speech proves to be true?
The Supreme Court heard claims on March 18 in the Murthy v. Missouri situation, in which claimants claimed that President Joe Biden’s administration ordered Facebook, X, and other programs to delete conversation, and in particular, questionable political speech.
Most of the restricted social media posts came from conventional or traditional- aligned figures, generally from those who questioned COVID- 19 conservatism about vaccines, lockdowns, and the facility leak origin theory of the disease. Last summer, a federal district court judge ordered the Biden administration to not contact any tech companies over what detractors called its heavy-handed repression force.
So, despite being referred to as a free speech case, Murthy v. Missouri‘s speech is primarily state speech, which little state researchers will point out as soon as possible is not protected by the First Amendment.
On a call with reporters teasing the case, New Civil Liberties Alliance attorney Jenin Younes stated,” The First Amendment is protection against the government, not for the government.”
A group of angry protesters gathered outside the Supreme Court building ahead of the hearings, and that was undoubtedly the cry. Participants yelled slogans and lofted signs that read “freedom of speech includes views you do n’t like” and “censorship is the tool of tyrants”.
Former Biden administration chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci, for many the face of the pandemic, came in for special criticism, with protest signs charging” Fauci is the tyrant the founding fathers warned us about” and” Fauci’s lies matter”.
However, the argument was not so simple to lock down before the court.
The attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri filed the lawsuit in 2022, contending that the government had overstepped its bounds in exposing what it saw as misinformation.
Brian Fletcher, arguing for the Biden administration, said the government does, in fact, have a right to speech.
The court has stated that he believes the government is entitled to speak for itself, he said. ” It’s not a right that comes from the First Amendment. It’s a feature of our constitutional democracy. As the court has said, the government could n’t function if it could n’t express points of view”.
Fletcher argued that the government was merely coercing the businesses into acting rather than persuading them. Justice Samuel Alito was interrogated in a line of questioning after that.
Leaning back in his chair, Alito noted there was” constant pestering” of the tech firms from government actors, who held regular meetings, suggested rules the companies could implement, and argued that both were “on the same team”.
” I ca n’t imagine the federal government taking that approach to the print media”, he said. ” It’s treating Facebook and these other platforms like they’re subordinates”.
Alito gestured to the courtroom’s press area to make his point, but there was n’t much to make of it. Media coverage at the hearing was surprisingly sparse compared to the recent Trump v. Anderson hearings ( the Colorado Supreme Court’s unsuccessful attempt to remove the former president from the 2024 ballot ).
Fletcher responded by making an allusion to the context that the government wanted to get people vaccinated against a once-in-a-life pandemic.
” That piece of context — it does n’t change the First Amendment principles, but it’s relevant to how they apply here”, he said.
Justice Neil Gorsuch inquired about Biden‘s claim that social media companies were “killing people” in July 2021. Is that coercion? In another instance, Fletcher brought up context and claimed Biden was merely a threat.
The defense’s general theme was that there was no direct link between government action and the removal of controversial posts, which occasionally occurred months or even years after the jawboning.
Both Fletcher and the plaintiff’s attorney, J. Benjamin Aguinaga, referenced the 1963 Bantam Books v. Sullivan case, in which the Supreme Court struck down a state system of informal book censorship.
Aguinaga called Murthy v. Missouri” the Bantam Books of the 21st century,” while Fletcher claimed there were differences between the two cases.
Aguinaga claimed that the social media companies were under pressure from the government, adding that the coercion issue was less significant than the fact that the government’s goal was to suppress speech.
Aguinaga was forced to respond to questions from a number of skeptical justices, but Fletcher did so after Alito grilled him.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor shook her head as she interrupted him and explained the reason they were being asked about coercion.
She said,” The private parties could have made their own decision to censor that speech.” ” They could have said,’ We think it’s obscene. I’m not going to be involved in this.’ The government’s overriding of that choice was the only turning point.
She then accused him of” confusing legal doctrines”.
Aguinaga apologized to three different justices for any confusion he’d caused, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the subject of a hypothetical in which social media platforms permitted posts challenging children to jump out of windows at increasingly tall heights, leading to serious injuries and deaths.
Do you agree with the government’s decision to declare those events a public emergency and to encourage social media to remove the information that is contributing to this issue? she asked Aguinaga, worrying that his view would have the First Amendment “hamstringing the government”.
CLICK HERE TO ACCESS MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The outcome may not be as significant as either side would have liked, with the left-leaning justices frequently referring to the government’s ability to do good and the right-leaning justices frequently mentioning the government’s ability to do good.
The justices appeared to have divided into various political camps, and they could reach a disjointed decision that would endanger both the plaintiff and the defendant. Before the end of June, a final decision is anticipated.
