Supreme Court Upholds Biden's Social Media Censorship Efforts
Submitted by MAGA
Posted 2 days ago
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Biden Administration in Social Media Censorship Case
In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrown out a lawsuit seeking to limit the government's ability to communicate with social media companies about their content moderation policies. The lawsuit was brought by two states with Republican attorneys general and several individuals whose social media posts were removed or downgraded.
The plaintiffs argued that the Biden administration's efforts to restrict misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine violated social media users' rights to free speech. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs did not have a legal right, known as standing, to bring their lawsuit.
Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett cited the lack of any "concrete link" between the restrictions that the plaintiffs complained of and the conduct of government officials. She also noted that a court order blocking communication between government officials and social media companies likely would not have any effect on decision-making by those platforms, which can continue to enforce their policies.
Justice Samuel Alito dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Alito suggested that the case could be "one of the most important free speech cases to reach" the Supreme Court "in years." He would have ruled both that the plaintiffs had standing to bring their lawsuit and that "the White House coerced Facebook into censoring" at least one plaintiff's speech.
The lawsuit centered on "jawboning," a term used to describe informal efforts by government officials to persuade someone outside the government to take action. In this case, the plaintiffs challenged the Biden administration's efforts in 2021 to restrict misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine.
The Supreme Court's decision is the second of four expected decisions this term involving the relationship between the government and social media. In March, in Lindke v. Freed, the justices weighed in on when public officials can be held liable for blocking their critics on their personal social media accounts. And in February, the justices heard oral arguments in a pair of challenges to laws in Texas and Florida that would regulate how large social media companies like Facebook and YouTube control the content posted on their sites; the court is expected to issue its decision in those cases in the coming days.
In response to the Supreme Court's ruling, US House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has called for new legislation to reinforce the rules meant to protect citizens from government-orchestrated censorship. Jordan noted that the US Constitution's First Amendment is "first for a reason" and that free speech should extend to any government infringement, be it in Congress or online.
Jordan mentioned the Censorship Accountability Act, a bill that would let citizens launch legal action against federal employees suspected of colluding to suppress free speech. Regardless of the Supreme Court's decision, Jordan pledged that the Committee's "important work will continue" and that the Subcommittee has "uncovered how and the extent to which the Biden Administration engaged in a censorship campaign in violation of the First Amendment."
Sources:
notthebee.com
scotusblog.com
reclaimthenet.org
In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrown out a lawsuit seeking to limit the government's ability to communicate with social media companies about their content moderation policies. The lawsuit was brought by two states with Republican attorneys general and several individuals whose social media posts were removed or downgraded.
The plaintiffs argued that the Biden administration's efforts to restrict misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine violated social media users' rights to free speech. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs did not have a legal right, known as standing, to bring their lawsuit.
Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett cited the lack of any "concrete link" between the restrictions that the plaintiffs complained of and the conduct of government officials. She also noted that a court order blocking communication between government officials and social media companies likely would not have any effect on decision-making by those platforms, which can continue to enforce their policies.
Justice Samuel Alito dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Alito suggested that the case could be "one of the most important free speech cases to reach" the Supreme Court "in years." He would have ruled both that the plaintiffs had standing to bring their lawsuit and that "the White House coerced Facebook into censoring" at least one plaintiff's speech.
The lawsuit centered on "jawboning," a term used to describe informal efforts by government officials to persuade someone outside the government to take action. In this case, the plaintiffs challenged the Biden administration's efforts in 2021 to restrict misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine.
The Supreme Court's decision is the second of four expected decisions this term involving the relationship between the government and social media. In March, in Lindke v. Freed, the justices weighed in on when public officials can be held liable for blocking their critics on their personal social media accounts. And in February, the justices heard oral arguments in a pair of challenges to laws in Texas and Florida that would regulate how large social media companies like Facebook and YouTube control the content posted on their sites; the court is expected to issue its decision in those cases in the coming days.
In response to the Supreme Court's ruling, US House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan has called for new legislation to reinforce the rules meant to protect citizens from government-orchestrated censorship. Jordan noted that the US Constitution's First Amendment is "first for a reason" and that free speech should extend to any government infringement, be it in Congress or online.
Jordan mentioned the Censorship Accountability Act, a bill that would let citizens launch legal action against federal employees suspected of colluding to suppress free speech. Regardless of the Supreme Court's decision, Jordan pledged that the Committee's "important work will continue" and that the Subcommittee has "uncovered how and the extent to which the Biden Administration engaged in a censorship campaign in violation of the First Amendment."
Sources:
notthebee.com
scotusblog.com
reclaimthenet.org
Latest News
