On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri. The case questions when government actions to suppress “misinformation” on social media violate the First Amendment. The New York Times portrays the case as part of a plot by Donald Trump’s supporters to undermine democracy by spreading false claims that mislead voters and threaten the peaceful transfer of power.
In a digital age where anyone can reach large audiences with unverified information, Times reporters Jim Rutenberg and Steven Lee Myers ask where to draw the line between protecting democracy and limiting free speech. They suggest that government officials have the authority to balance free speech against other values on a case-by-case basis. However, the First Amendment does not work that way. It prohibits the government from restricting freedom of speech.
The Biden administration claims it did not violate the First Amendment by pressuring social media platforms to censor what they deemed dangerous content. However, civil liberties groups argue that officials crossed the line between persuasion and coercion. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) urges the Supreme Court to uphold a ruling that government agencies infringed on the First Amendment by interfering with private moderation decisions.
FIRE argues that White House and FBI officials used various tactics to pressure social media companies to moderate content. Some communications were deemed coercive, with officials issuing demands and threats to comply. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is concerned that overly broad injunctions could prevent useful contacts that alert social media companies to misinformation threats. However, EFF also acknowledges that some government actions may be coercive.
Rutenberg and Myers focus on the dangers of false information online and argue against limiting the government’s ability to monitor content. They suggest that constitutional objections to government interference with social media have hindered efforts to curb online speech.
Overall, the case highlights the tension between freedom of speech and government efforts to combat misinformation online. It remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will rule on this important issue.