For medical professionals like Eileen Barrett, the upcoming Supreme Court case that questions the government’s right to interact with social media platforms is not just a debate about the complex politics of online expression.
They argue it’s a matter of life and death.
Barrett, who leads the American College of Physicians, expressed deep concern over the spread of misleading information online. “I’ve encountered numerous statements that range from questionable to outright false, which I fear are harming patients,” she said. “We’ve all treated patients who’ve succumbed to the flu, and now, COVID-19.”
For years, officials from the Biden administration have encouraged social media sites like Facebook and X to remove posts spreading false information about vaccines, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the 2020 election, among other topics.
Now, it’s up to the Supreme Court to determine if these actions cross the line into censorship, infringing on First Amendment rights on social media.
The outcome of this case could significantly impact the 2024 election. It will decide if the Department of Homeland Security can legally notify social media companies about posts potentially crafted by foreign disinformation agents aiming to disrupt the election. Halting this communication could dismantle years of cooperation initiated in response to the shocking discovery of Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. elections.
In 2022, Republican officials from Missouri and Louisiana, along with five social media users, sued over these practices. They argue that the Biden administration did more than just “persuade” tech companies to remove misleading posts. They claim it was an informal, behind-the-scenes effort to suppress dissenting opinions, a tactic known as “jawboning.”
The plaintiffs point to the suppression of coverage regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop in late 2020 as proof of unconstitutional government influence. They also argue that the FBI pressured platforms to take down content it labeled as “foreign,” even when it was authored by Americans.
“The result was the silencing of entire narratives,” stated Jenin Younes, a lawyer for the New Civil Liberties Alliance. “Policies were adopted without the public hearing those views, which is precisely why the First Amendment exists—to prevent the government from doing just that.”
The case, Murthy v. Missouri, arrives at a critical moment. Courts and policymakers are wrestling with the influence of social media on everything from medical decisions to election outcomes. Despite the debates often leading to bipartisan actions, such as a potential nationwide TikTok ban, legal battles over social media at the Supreme Court have shown a partisan divide.
The Court is also reviewing state laws from Florida and Texas aimed at preventing social media giants from suppressing conservative viewpoints. These laws face opposition from a trade group representing social media companies, which argues they infringe on the companies’ First Amendment rights.
The First Amendment prohibits government-imposed speech restrictions. However, this does not apply to private entities like Facebook, which can control content as they see fit. Yet, the Supreme Court has previously ruled that private entities can be considered “state actors” subject to First Amendment scrutiny if compelled by the government to act.
The administration contends it never forced platforms to act because it never threatened negative consequences for ignoring its advice.
“Government officials do not breach the First Amendment when they aim to inform, persuade, or critique others’ speech,” the U.S. government stated.
Testimony revealed that social media companies often independently decided how to handle government input, sometimes ignoring suggestions that conflicted with their terms of service.
Internal discussions about how Twitter handled the Hunter Biden laptop story showed company officials were divided on whether to limit coverage, challenging the notion that the platform acted under government or ideological pressure.
“The government cannot coerce platforms into censoring protected speech,” said Alex Abdo from the Knight First Amendment Institute. “However, it must be able to engage in public discourse to govern effectively and inform the public.”
A Louisiana federal judge initially blocked the White House and several federal agencies from contacting social media companies about content removal. However, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later narrowed this injunction, focusing on specific agencies likely violating the First Amendment.
After an emergency appeal by the Biden administration, the Supreme Court temporarily allowed federal communications to continue and agreed to hear the case.
Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas expressed disagreement with this decision. Alito voiced concerns that this could be perceived as the government being allowed to use forceful tactics to influence media narratives, which he found regrettable.
The dispute has attracted attention from election officials and media organizations, concerned about the potential for limiting their ability to combat election misinformation. Civil rights advocates warn that a ruling against the government could hinder research and speech by independent watchdogs and discourage efforts to protect U.S. elections.
From the perspective of doctors, the trend of vaccine hesitancy is worsening, partly due to misinformation on social media, according to Dr. Benjamin Hoffman, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The medical groups supporting the Biden administration emphasize the significant impact of health-related myths and disinformation, particularly concerning vaccines.
“While the core issue of the Supreme Court case may not directly relate to our concerns, the consequences are profoundly significant,” Hoffman, a practicing pediatrician in Oregon, concluded.