The Supreme Court lets the White House combat online disinformation

TThe Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected states and anti-lockdown advocates who said the government violated their First Amendment rights by asking social media giants to remove or restrict coronavirus misinformation.

The 6-3 decision gives federal officials the freedom to talk to social media companies about combating disinformation. The majority found that the states and attorneys had no standing to bring the case because they did not show that the government’s actions harmed them or that government officials directly influenced the social media companies’ policies.

The case, Murthy v. Missouri, focused on whether Biden officials were exceeded their authority when we push platforms like Facebook and Twitter to remove or downgrade posts questioning vaccine safety, masking policies and theories about the origins of the virus.

The companies have publicly maintained that they developed and implemented their own social media policies, but they also engaged in regular dialogue with the White House and federal health officials.

Plaintiffs in the case include two attorneys general and two doctors who were promoted herd immunity theoryargued those conversations limited freedom of expression and ostracized skeptics of the government’s Covid-19 policies.

But when justices heard arguments in March, seemed skeptical of the argument that the White House coerced companies or that plaintiffs were harmed by restricted social media posts. Several, including conservative judges, wondered when the government would do this could be press platforms to limit messages – for example about national security issues or trends that put teenagers at risk.

The decision reverses a ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that government officials overstepped their role. The lower court “erred in treating the defendants, plaintiffs, and platforms each as a single entity,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion.

Prosecutors ultimately failed to prove a “concrete link” between federal officials’ frequent communications with social media platforms and content moderation policies that led to restricted or removed posts, Barrett concluded.

The decision is probably welcomed by public health experts and tech industry lobbyists. Health officials argue that using the White House pulpit is an important tool to combat misinformation; The industry has said that government interference in their moderation policies could set a dangerous precedent for site content.

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

“If the lower courts’ review of the voluminous record is correct, this is one of the most important free speech cases this Court has reached in years,” Alito wrote. “However, the Court allows that the successful coercion campaign in this case provides an attractive model for future officials who want to control what people say, hear and think.”

Surveillance of government communications during the pandemic will likely continue. The New Civil Liberties Alliance, which represented four of the five plaintiffs in Murthy, sent a letter this month to Justice Department officials regarding emails from National Institutes of Health officials who suggested some were evading federal registration requirements.

These emails “suggest that Dr. Fauci committed perjury, or at least provided deliberately misleading testimony, in his Murthy v. Missouri deposition on November 23, 2022.” the group said. “NCLA is committed to Dr. Hold Fauci and others accountable under the law.”

This is a developing story and will be updated.