Supreme Court Allows Federal Government to Influence Social Media Information
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court cleared the way Wednesday for the federal government to compel social media companies to block what it describes as dangerous misinformation.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit said the federal government violated their First Amendment free speech rights by seeking to limit what they can publish.
They also warned that government influence could be used to show political favoritism toward special interests.
The Biden administration argued that social media posts containing false or dangerously inflammatory information could threaten public safety.
An example mentioned during the lawsuit was social media misinformation that COVID-19 vaccines were useless and potentially dangerous. Public health officials say the misinformation contributed to hundreds and perhaps thousands of needless deaths during the worst of the pandemic.
The Supreme Court said the plaintiffs lacked standing, which refers to some sort of harm caused by someone else that can be remedied by the courts.
The lawsuit was filed by the states of Missouri, Louisiana and five individuals. The individuals were three scientists, a conservative Missouri news website owner and a woman who objected to COVID-19 mandates.
They said the content they posted online was moderated by social media companies who were being coerced by government agencies, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The lawsuit accused social media companies Facebook, YouTube and X, formerly known as Twitter, of censoring their posts about presidential son Hunter Biden; mail-in ballot voter fraud claims promoted by former President Donald Trump; and COVID-19-related conspiracy theories.
The attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana claimed a stake in the lawsuit by saying federal government censorship interfered with their right to access information reflecting the opinions of their constituents.
The individuals were represented by the Washington, D.C.-based public interest law firm New Civil Liberties Alliance.
“The court’s ruling will make it far easier for the government to censor speech it doesn’t like and far harder for affected interests to oppose that censorship, which is anathema to the Constitution,” a New Civil Liberties Alliance statement said.
The Supreme Court said the plaintiffs could not prove they suffered damages — such as physical injury or financial or property losses — that would give them a right to sue.
“Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the 6-to-3 majority.
The nine justices largely avoided the free speech issue, which prompted a dissent from Justice Sameul Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
The government’s actions were “blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the court’s failure to say so,” the dissenting opinion said.
A federal judge in Louisiana earlier issued an injunction forbidding federal agencies from continuing to discuss content moderation with social media companies.
The injunction, along with a modification by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, were overturned by the Supreme Court decision Wednesday.
The case is Murthy et al. v. Missouri et al. in the Supreme Court of the United States.
You can reach us at [email protected] and follow us on
