On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court reversed a lower court order that had limited government officials' content moderation interactions with social media sites, marking a major victory for the Biden administration.
The Court ruled 6-3. The majority's Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted that the plaintiffs failed to link government pressure to the tech firms' content moderation decisions, per NPR.
A Landmark Case
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote a majority judgment that the plaintiffs-Republican attorneys general from Louisiana and Missouri and five social media users-had not shown they were personally harmed by government officials.
Barrett noted that social media sites moderated content before government pressure and stressed that government officials' moderating judgments did not warrant a wide injunction. She stated that the plaintiffs failed to link government communications to content limitation, according to NBC News.
Justice Barrett stated that the states' claims that a Louisiana state representative's Facebook post regarding COVID-19 vaccines was banned owing to government pressure were unsubstantiated.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch strongly dissented, calling the case a crucial free speech issue. Alito attacked the majority for allowing unlawful government compulsion, suggesting it may create a dangerous precedent for speech restriction.
Jenin Younes, representing the individual claimants, said the verdict backed unprecedented government censorship. Doctors who opposed COVID-19 regulations and Jim Hoft of The Gateway Pundit claimed their information was censored. Barrett disagreed with Hoft, arguing that FBI or Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency involvement did not influence moderation choices.
The lawsuit involved the Biden administration's efforts to address COVID-19 vaccination disinformation and foreign electoral involvement. Missouri, Louisiana, and individual plaintiffs claimed federal outreach to Facebook and Twitter forced companies to restrict information.
The high court's decision comes amid federal attempts to prevent internet disinformation ahead of the presidential election and public access to advanced AI technologies.
Biden Administration Accused of Pressuring Critics
The verdict may encourage government interference over social media corporations and other private enterprises, critics warn. Five social media users claimed the Biden administration violated their First Amendment rights by coercing platforms. They called social media a "sprawling federal 'Censorship Enterprise.'" They said federal authorities violated the Constitution by forcing them to restrict material they disagreed with.
The users and Louisiana and Missouri authorities urged the US Supreme Court to limit government contact with social media corporations. They said the administration's acts were coercion, not persuasion.
The case raised worries about the Biden administration "jawboning," when informal pressure is used to influence private businesses' speech-suppressing acts.
In another case, according to CBS News, the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled that New York's financial regulator violated the National Rifle Association's First Amendment rights by forcing financial institutions to cut connections with it due to its lobbying.
Reviving the NRA's lawsuit against the former New York regulator highlights ongoing concerns over government control of private speech venues.
Related Article: UN Rolls Out Global Principles to Fight Online Hate, Misinformation
