During oral arguments before the Supreme Court in a case that restricted the ability of U.S. government officials to communicate with social media companies about the presence of misinformation on their platforms, the justices ruled when communication between the federal government and companies crosses the line. He seemed intent on finding out what was going on, and it became compulsory.
In Monday's arguments, both conservative and liberal justices questioned whether there were any circumstances in which the government could not communicate with third parties about removing online content without departing from constitutional grounds.
Two states and five individuals have filed a controversial lawsuit, Marcy v. Missouri, alleging that collaboration between the government and social media companies over vaccine misinformation and election fraud is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. He claimed that there was.
In a ruling that resonated from Washington to Silicon Valley, a lower court agreed with the plaintiffs and ordered social media platforms to remove content that U.S. government officials question the effectiveness of vaccines or the integrity of elections. The court ruled that the government had trampled on the right to free speech by encouraging .
During Monday's oral argument, Deputy U.S. Attorney Brian Fletcher argued that lower courts do not understand “the fundamental distinction between persuasion and coercion.”
Fletcher said government officials frequently communicate with social media companies about misinformation and disinformation posted online, sometimes urging them to remove or block such content; It argued that there was a lack of threat of retaliation to constitute coercion.
He told the court, “While the government cannot use coercive threats to suppress speech, the government does have the right to express its views by informing, persuading, and criticizing those who speak.'' There is,” he said.
In fact, platforms frequently deny government requests to remove posts or remove content, indicating that social media companies do not feel undue pressure to censor on behalf of governments. Fletcher insisted.
In Monday's oral argument, several justices expressed skepticism that states are violating free speech rights in their communications with platforms.
Justice Elena Kagan ruled against Louisiana Attorney General Benjamin Aguignaga, who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, that a ruling in favor of Benjamin Aguignaga, who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, would affect routine interactions between the government and third parties. We investigated why telephone calls from government agency communications staff, etc.) were not wiped out. He wakes up newspapers to complain about articles with factual errors, and claims that unfavorable editorials are unfair.
“That seems like a very broad argument,” Kagan mused. “This happens literally thousands of times a day in the federal government.”
Other members of the court vehemently disagreed with that comparison. Justice Samuel Alito said that the persistent “harassment” by social media companies and government antitrust and regulatory agencies effectively amounts to the government treating Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms “like subordinates.” claimed to be equal.
He wondered if the government would use a similar tone when communicating with the press, or if it would claim to be a partner of the government. “Regular meetings, regular emails. 'We want answers. We're partners, we're on the same team.'” Print media sees itself as part of the same team as the federal government. Do you think you are thinking about it?'' Alito asked.
Monday's argument took place as part of a landmark case concerning the evolving relationship between governments and online platforms and the former's ability to limit the flow of false information to the latter. In recent years, governments have restricted information sharing with technology companies not only for public health purposes, but also on national security issues, such as warning platforms about how their tools are being used by foreign countries to spread propaganda. We are strengthening our efforts.
Although the justices appeared broadly skeptical of the plaintiffs' argument that the government goes too far in cracking down on online speech, a clear majority of the justices expressed concern for the ability of online platforms to report problematic speech. It was not clear whether they would try to keep it.
“Many justices seemed concerned that some of the federal government's actions in this case may have crossed constitutional lines, but they also “They seemed equally wary of making broad rulings that could impede media companies,” said Kate Ruane, director of the Freedom of Expression Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a left-wing think tank in Washington. said.
In Monday's arguments, the justices explored when a communication crosses the line into being coercive and how the government's other regulatory powers affect the recognition that a communication is coercive.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wondered whether implying that the government was prepared to exercise more or less antitrust or regulatory power against a company in the absence of cooperation could be considered coercion. Chief Justice John Roberts asked whether small acts, such as moving a reporter's desk to a bad position after an unfavorable report, could be considered a form of coercion.
Some judges balked at the absolutism of the plaintiffs' position. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson ruled that the government could use constitutional law to influence social media companies, including virtual online trends that encourage children to jump from ever-higher windows and lead to real harm. I asked if there were any circumstances that could support this. Delete harmful posts.
Mr. Aguignaga answered, “No.” “The moment a government attempts to use its capacity or position as a government to pressure someone to overthrow it, it is interfering with a third party's right to speech,” he told the court. said.
If the lower court's ruling is upheld, it would have a major impact on the government's ability to share information with platforms, an impact that government officials say is already being felt.
A lower court ruling from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (partially lifted while the Supreme Court heard the case) means the government can take action against social media companies over controversial posts. It is prohibited to force or “substantially encourage” people to do so. And Fletcher said the injunction is “a headache” for federal authorities, hindering their daily work to combat disinformation, including from overseas.
Last month, on Super Tuesday, when millions of Americans voted in primary nomination races, CISA officials told CyberScoop and other reporters that CISA officials had no contact with social media companies as part of their election security mission. He said he had not.
A week earlier, Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia, said the NSA, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and FBI had “literally no contact” with social media companies in the wake of the CISA ruling. Warner added, “And that should make all of us very scared.”
