The case involves lawsuits brought by two Republican-led states (Missouri and Louisiana) and individual social media users. They accuse the Biden administration of running a massive federal “censorship enterprise” to influence platforms to modify or remove posts, violating the First Amendment. .
Justices Elena Kagan and Brett M. Kavanaugh previously worked as lawyers. The Democratic and Republican administrations each proposed that the government interact with platforms and media. These were routine events and did not amount to censorship or coercion that violated the constitutional right to free speech.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. seemed to agree, noting that the federal government has many agencies that cannot always speak with a single voice.
“It's not a monolith,” he said in an exchange with the attorney representing Louisiana. “That would have to significantly dilute the concept of coercion, right?
The case presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to shape how government officials engage with social media companies and communicate with the public online, as social media platforms play an increasingly important role in elections and public debate. gave to. The justices are being asked to clarify when the government's attempts to combat misinformation cross the line from permissible persuasion to unconstitutional coercion.
The controversy is one of several cases this session in which justices will consider Republican-backed claims that social media companies are collaborating with Democratic allies to silence conservative voices online. be. The results could have far-reaching implications for the U.S. government's efforts to combat foreign disinformation in a crucial election year when nearly half of the world's population will vote.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned at a conference in Seoul on Monday of a “flood of falsehoods that are suffocating serious civil debate.” He said social media and artificial intelligence have “created an accelerator for disinformation.”
The high court on Monday appeared poised to accept a narrow ruling, with multiple justices suggesting the states and individuals behind the lawsuit did not have sufficient legal grounds to sue the Biden administration.Several Officials said they could not show a direct link between government pressure on the platforms and tech companies' removal of posts the government deemed problematic.
Kagan asked Louisiana's lawyers for proof that the government, not social media companies, was responsible for removing the posts in question. “How do you know it’s a government action and not a platform action?”
The First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring speech or punishing people who express different opinions. But the Biden administration has said officials have the right to share information, engage in public debate and urge action, as long as the requests do not involve threats.
Brian Fletcher, the principal deputy attorney general representing the Biden administration, said government officials have long had the power to use the bully pulpit for information and persuasion. He said the lower court ruling would prevent thousands of government officials from speaking out, including FBI agents and presidential aides. Threats to national security and public health.
The attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana argue that the federal government has gone too far in forcing social media companies to suppress the speech of individual users and getting deeply involved in companies' decisions to remove certain content. did. Tech companies cannot act on behalf of the government to remove speech it doesn't like, they said.
Louisiana Attorney General J. Benjamin Aguignaga said the Biden administration applied relentless pressure on the platform, using profanity and expletives rather than a bully pulpit. “It's just bullying,” he told the court.
The Supreme Court records include a trove of email messages between Biden administration officials and social media companies, including Facebook's parent company Meta and It shows a tense conversation during a campaign to get Americans vaccinated against the coronavirus. .Several judges remanded the case Monday. It criticized the states' characterization of these messages and pointed out inaccuracies in the filings.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, “Counselor, your brief is deeply problematic,'' adding, “You omit information that changes the context of some of your arguments. and blame the people for it not to happen.”
Aguignaga apologized and took responsibility “if any aspect of our brief was not as candid as it should have been.”
The toughest questions for the Biden administration came from conservative Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas, who along with Justice Neil M. Gorsuch issued a dissenting opinion earlier this term. When the majority temporarily blocked a lower court ruling allowing continued contact with social media companies.
Alito said the heated exchanges and constant demands from the Biden administration at the height of the 2021 vaccination campaign showed the government was inexcusably coordinating with and coercing social media companies. was suggested.
He said the administration “treats Facebook and other platforms like subordinates,” noting that he can't imagine government officials making similar demands of news organizations.
“Do you think the print media considers themselves part of the same team and affiliated with the federal government?” Alito asked, pointing to dozens of journalists sitting inside the courtroom. asked a government lawyer.
Mr. Gorsuch asked Mr. Fletcher whether accusing a company of “murder” crossed the line of coercion. The question was in reference to President Biden's response in July 2021 to a question about how Facebook and other technology platforms were handling misinformation about the coronavirus. vaccine.
Fletcher said Biden's comments were “off the top of his head” and meant “an exhortation, not a threat.” Biden clarified three days later that he was not referring to the platforms, but to the people who are spreading misinformation, according to his lawyer.
said Kavanaugh, who worked in the White House under George W. Bush. It is not uncommon for government officials to warn media companies that stories about surveillance and other military policies could harm the war effort and endanger the American people.
The first ruling in the case came from a conservative district court judge in Louisiana who said the Biden administration appears to have launched “the most extensive assault on free speech in American history.” A court order barred thousands of federal employees from unduly influencing tech companies to remove certain content.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit limited the decision to a small number of government officials and agencies, including the Surgeon General, the White House, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the FBI. A three-judge panel of the appeals court said the White House may have “forced platforms to make moderation decisions through coercive messages and threats of negative repercussions.” The committee also found that the White House “significantly encouraged platform decisions by usurping the policy-making process, both of which violate the First Amendment.”
In October, the Supreme Court intervened, allowing the Biden administration to resume communications with social media companies while litigation continues. Mr. Thomas, Mr. Alito, and Mr. Gorsuch objected, saying that “government censorship of private speech is contrary to our democratic form of government.''
Separate from the lawsuit, House Republicans are investigating how tech companies handled requests from Biden administration officials, requesting thousands of documents from internet platforms. Conservative activists have also filed lawsuits and records requests seeking private communications between tech companies and academic researchers studying election and health-related conspiracies.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) led the investigation into the technology industry and supported the lawsuit by Congress. Republican attorneys general who oppose the Biden administration also attended Monday's arguments.
The justices will decide this session whether state laws passed in Texas and Florida can prevent social media companies from removing certain political posts. The court is expected to rule on those cases and those involving the Biden administration, likely by the end of his term in June or early July.
David Green, director of human rights at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said tech companies are unlikely to make any major changes to their programs to counter disinformation until then, even as the U.S. presidential election approaches. Ta.
Green said the incident “puts the platform in a very uncertain position.”
As for Monday, Marcy vs. Missouri.
