The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled in favor of the Biden administration in a landmark case that challenged the federal government's power to pressure social media companies to censor speech.
Judges rule The court voted 6-3 to overturn a lower court's injunction that barred the federal government from “coercing or significantly encouraging” social media companies to suppress speech, and found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. The case, Murthy v. Missouri, was brought by the Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana and five private attorneys. plaintiff His own statements were censored.
“To be able to litigate, plaintiffs must show that they have a substantial risk of near-term harm from a government defendant that they could receive relief from the injunction they seek,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion. “Absent the plaintiffs have no standing to seek a preliminary injunction. To be able to litigate, plaintiffs must show that they have a substantial risk of near-term harm from a government defendant that they could receive relief from the injunction they seek. Absent the plaintiffs have no standing to seek a preliminary injunction.”
Last July, Judge Terry A. Doughty of the Louisiana District Court issued the first injunction, barring a wide range of Biden administration officials from communicating with social media platforms with the intent of censoring protected speech. The judge said the allegations in the case could amount to “the most sweeping attack on free speech in American history” and called the government's actions “Orwellian.” (Related: Left-wing groups ask Supreme Court to allow Biden administration to continue working with big tech companies on censorship)
The Fifth Circuit narrowed the scope of the injunction but agreed that the White House, Surgeon General, CDC, FBI, and later added CISA had likely violated the First Amendment.
In filings with the Supreme Court, the government argued that the injunction “imposes unprecedented restrictions on the ability of the president's associates to use their influence to address public concerns.”
WASHINGTON, DC – JUNE 7, 2024: Visitors walk through the West Plaza of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Documents obtained during the litigation Highlighting Government takedown requests urging companies to curb “misinformation” on a range of topics from COVID-19 to the election.
For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has flagged posts for removal on the platform, as has the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). Engaged “Switchboarding” involved sending reports of “misinformation” flagged by local election officials to social media companies, who then asked them to remove it.
White House officials have pressured the companies to censor certain individuals, including Tucker Carlson, Tomi Lahren and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., for their vaccine-related posts.
In a March 2021 email to Facebook, former White House director of digital strategy Rob Flaherty told the company it should censor more “borderline content.”
“I am deeply concerned that your services are one of the largest drivers of vaccine hesitancy,” he wrote, according to court documents.
Various agencies also participated in regular industry meetings with the platforms to discuss concerns about misinformation, according to the documents.
As an independent, nonpartisan news service, all content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation is available free of charge to any legitimate news publisher with a large readership. All republished articles must include our logo, reporter byline, and affiliation with the DCNF. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
