U.S. Supreme Court Temporarily Halts Order Restricting Biden Administration’s Ability to Encourage Social Media Censorship
Washington, Sept 14 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily halted an order that limited President Joe Biden’s administration’s ability to encourage social media companies to remove content deemed misleading, including information about the COVID-19 pandemic. The order, issued by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, freezes a lower court’s decision that found federal officials had likely violated the free speech protections of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment by pressuring social media platforms into censoring certain posts. Alito’s order will remain in effect until September 22.
The lawsuit against the Biden administration was first filed in Louisiana by the Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, along with a group of social media users. The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, prompting the Biden administration to request a hold on the lower court’s decision while it prepares a formal appeal.
The Justice Department argues that the administration’s closest aides have the right to use their positions to persuade companies to act in the public interest, emphasizing the distinction between persuasion and coercion. The 5th Circuit’s order, according to the administration, subjects many such communications to a risk of contempt and could deter White House staff from calling for social media companies to exercise greater responsibility.
The administration also asserts that the plaintiffs lack the necessary legal standing to sue and that the 5th Circuit’s ruling contradicts fundamental First Amendment principles. The Supreme Court is expected to further review the case and make a decision by October 13.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey plans to oppose the administration’s Supreme Court appeal, stating that they are committed to rooting out what they call a “censorship enterprise” and holding wrongdoers accountable.
The case centers around a ruling by Louisiana-based U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, who found that U.S. officials had coerced social media platforms such as Meta Platforms’ Facebook, Alphabet’s YouTube, and X Corp, formerly Twitter, into suppressing posts related to COVID-19 and claims of fraud in the 2020 election. The 5th Circuit upheld Doughty’s ruling, stating that government officials likely violated the First Amendment by attempting to suppress millions of social media posts by U.S. citizens.
However, the 5th Circuit narrowed Doughty’s injunction, only applying it to the White House, the surgeon general, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the FBI. These entities are now prohibited from coercing or significantly encouraging social media companies to remove content.
The Supreme Court’s decision to temporarily halt the order adds another layer to the ongoing debate over the role of social media platforms in regulating content. As the case unfolds, its outcome will have significant implications for free speech and the power of the government to influence online discourse.
Reporting by John Kruzel in Washington and Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Will Dunham
Original Story at www.reuters.com – 2023-09-14 19:07:00
Comments are closed.