The Supreme Court threw out a challenge on June 26 to the federal government’s actions when it communicated with social media platforms about public health issues during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The justices voted 6–3 to find that those challenging the government lacked legal standing to do so.

The states had argued that the federal government strong-armed social media companies into censoring disfavored views on important public issues, such as side effects related to COVID-19 vaccines and the pandemic lockdowns. Applying this kind of pressure violates the First Amendment, the states said.

Conservatives and others have complained that social media censors information about transgender issues, COVID-19, and the 2020 election. They were particularly concerned about coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop computer that contained information they say might have harmed President Joe Biden’s 2020 election campaign had it been allowed to circulate freely.

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.

The petitioner, Dr. Vivek Murthy, is the U.S. surgeon general. The state of Missouri and other parties sued the federal government for censorship because it allegedly pressured social media companies to suppress certain 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.

This was not a case of the government accessing a “bully pulpit” to rally Americans to a cause—this was the government “just being a bully,” he said.

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 said.

In this case, the states of Missouri and Louisiana, plus five individuals, are trying to use the federal courts “to audit all of the executive branch’s communications with social media platforms,” Mr. Fletcher said.

This is a developing story. It will be updated.

Rating: 3.5/5. From 6 votes.
Please wait...