SCOTUS is weighing in on free speech and social media censorship

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that will decide a key First Amendment question in the online era: at what point do the US government's attempts to remove misinformation on social media cross into unconstitutional censorship of free speech?

Some quick background: The case centers around the US government’s strategy in recent years to combat what it frames as misinformation posted online, which involves dozens of federal officials contacting various platforms about removing or demoting certain posts.

The policy stood until last July, when a federal judge issued a ruling that barred key government officials from contacting social media companies about their content moderation efforts.

• The judge said individuals at those agencies violated the First Amendment by "coercing" or "significantly encouraging" social media platforms into moderating their content about a range of topics, including Covid vaccines and foreign election interference (specifically, the 2020 Hunter Biden laptop story).

But that ruling appears likely to be overturned by SCOTUS. In yesterday’s arguments, a majority of Justices seemed to agree with US officials who said they were seeking to inform and persuade social media platforms to address false information – not compelling them to do so. This distinction, they argued, means the government’s actions don’t violate the First Amendment.

• On the flip side, the plaintiffs argued the government essentially did compel social media platforms to remove posts, since US officials frequently combined their private demands with public references to potential adverse consequences against social media firms, like antitrust reforms or changes to the Section 230 internet liability law.

👀 Looking ahead… The Supreme Court will publish a final decision in the case before the end of its term in late June or early July.