Article Summary –
The US Supreme Court is considering whether the federal government crossed into censorship by pressuring social media platforms to take down content it deemed misleading. Stemming from the Biden administration’s efforts to remove content seen to spread falsehoods about the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 presidential election, the case is a significant test of the First Amendment’s free speech protections in the digital age. The Supreme Court will also hear a case regarding whether a New York financial regulator violated the National Rifle Association’s free speech rights when she pressured banks and insurance companies in the state to sever ties with the gun rights group.
Washington Supreme Court to Address Censorship and Free Speech on Social Media
On Monday, the Supreme Court will evaluate whether the government violated the constitution’s free speech protections when it coerced social media platforms to remove content it labelled misleading. This case stems from the Biden administration pushing for the removal of content spreading misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 presidential election.
The case will test the limits of the First Amendment’s free speech protections in the digital era, examining the boundary where government attempts to protect against misinformation overstep into the territory of constitutionally protected speech censorship.
“The critical free speech issue being tested is how far can the government go in pressuring private speech intermediaries to remove speech before it crosses into First Amendment violation or state action,” said Clay Calvert, a law professor at the University of Florida and First Amendment expert.
The Social Media Case and the NRA’s Legal Battle
Two cases will be presented on Monday, one involving social media, known as Murthy v. Missouri, and another involving a New York financial regulator violating the National Rifle Association’s free speech rights. Both cases deal with the concept of ‘jawboning,’ where the government informally pressures an intermediary to suppress speech.
The first case arose from the Biden administration pressuring platforms such as Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook to remove posts about COVID-19 and the 2020 election. This led to social media users and two states, Louisiana and Missouri, claiming their speech was suppressed when platforms removed their posts after pressure from officials in the White House, Centers for Disease Control, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security.
The second case involves the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services allegedly violating NRA’s free speech rights by pressuring insurance companies and banks to break ties with the gun rights group. The NRA claimed that their free speech was violated when Vullo threatened insurers with enforcement action if they continued their affiliation with the NRA, thereby creating a system of “informal censorship.”
Government Coercion vs Free Speech
The key question for the justices is whether the Biden administration was engaging in permissible persuasion or unlawful coercion when it urged social media platforms to suppress content. “It’s going to have to define those rules about what speech is allowed and what’s not, how far can the government go before it violates the First Amendment rights of the individuals who are posting on the speech intermediaries,” said Calvert.
The Biden administration argues that it is crucial for federal officials to communicate with social media companies on public matters, and using strong language does not necessarily mean crossing a constitutional line. However, critics argue that the government has a responsibility to ensure it doesn’t appear to be forcing its agenda on these platforms.
A decision from the Supreme Court in both cases is expected by the end of June.
Read More US Political News
Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our web site. Please see our republishing guidelines for use of photos and graphics.
