The Supreme Court’s decision on this First Amendment issue could have far-reaching implications on how we understand and navigate the digital public square going forward.

From The Hill. The Supreme Court seemed wary Monday of imposing harsh limits on how federal officials communicate with social media platforms about content moderation decisions.

View Comments (7)

This content is supported by your donations.
Give today.

Sharply questioning both sides, the justices sought to determine when it is appropriate for the government to encourage the platforms to remove controversial content — if ever.

Several justices, both liberal and conservative, pushed against the sweeping argument made by Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga, who claimed the government should not, in most circumstances, ask platforms to remove any content.

Several justices suggested that in some instances, the government’s responsibility to protect its citizens could outweigh their First Amendment rights. …

Justice Amy Coney Barrett … questioned whether the FBI could encourage platforms to remove posts doxxing public officials, or posting private or identifying information online with the intent to harm.

Aguiñaga, who declared himself a “purist on the First Amendment,” suggested that this would constitute an abridgement of speech.

“So the FBI can’t make — do you know how often the FBI makes those kinds of calls?” Barrett replied.

The case stemmed from the Biden administration’s efforts to curb misinformation online, which two Republican attorneys general contended amounted to a “campaign of censorship” bent on deplatforming “disfavored speakers, viewpoints and content.” …

Biden administration officials’ requests to social media companies largely focused on content about the results of the 2020 presidential election, which former President Trump was contesting, and COVID-19. …

The Justice Department has argued that blocking communication between federal officials and social media companies could limit the government’s ability to address matters of public concern, prevent national security threats and relay information.

The case is expected to turn on whether federal officials’ efforts to persuade social media companies to moderate misleading or false posts amounted to coercion, effectively turning the platforms into state actors bound by the First Amendment. …

Principal Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher argued the Biden administration had not crossed the line into coercion and was simply using its power to attempt to persuade social media companies to remove certain content.

Fletcher pointed to the fact that administration officials never explicitly threatened or offered any inducement to social media companies to remove content and that these companies repeatedly refused their requests. …

Additionally, the justices questioned whether the government would treat print media the same way as the government treated social media platforms, using forceful language to persuade them to remove content officials deemed problematic. The comparison between print media and social media has been raised in several social media-related arguments this term.

“I don’t know whether our public information officer is here today, but maybe she should take a note about this: So whenever [the media] write something that we don’t like, she can call them up and curse them out and say, ‘Why don’t we be partners? We’re on the same team, why don’t you show us what you’re going to write beforehand. We’ll edit it for you, make sure it’s accurate,’” Justice Samuel Alito said while sparring with Fletcher, the Justice Department deputy solicitor general. …

Share this article to encourage others to pray about this crucial Supreme Court case.

(Excerpt from The Hill. Photo Credit: Adam Szuscik on Unsplash)