The Biden administration has requested the Supreme Court to pause a lower court's order that limits their ability to pressure social media companies to remove or suppress posts. This legal battle over online speech has been ongoing, and the request comes after a panel of judges from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that some Biden administration officials likely violated the First Amendment by pressuring tech companies to take down posts about the coronavirus and elections. The outcome of the case, Missouri v. Biden, could have significant implications for government efforts to combat online misinformation with the help of tech companies.
The government argues that it cannot punish media or intermediaries for sharing disliked speech but emphasizes the distinction between persuasion and coercion. Legal experts believe that this case is a strong candidate for Supreme Court review due to the importance of the issues and the lack of clarity in the law.
The Supreme Court swiftly responded to the petition by temporarily halting the social media injunction. Responses to the Biden administration's application are due by September 20. This case is part of a broader conservative push to limit social media companies' content moderation efforts, with allegations that government officials collude with tech companies to influence public discourse and suppress conservative views.
The ruling by the 5th Circuit panel modified an injunction issued by a U.S. District Judge in Louisiana, which had placed even broader limits on government officials' communications with social media platforms. The panel concluded that the judge had made an error in determining that various government departments and agencies had coerced social media companies.
Apart from this case, the Supreme Court is also considering other requests related to online content moderation. Last month, the Biden administration urged the court to overturn a 5th Circuit decision allowing a Texas social media law to take effect. This law prohibits companies from removing posts based on political ideology, and both state attorneys general and tech companies seek clarity from the court on this matter. The 5th Circuit's ruling conflicts with an earlier ruling by the 11th Circuit that blocked a similar Florida law.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court decided that Google, Twitter, and Facebook were not responsible for encouraging attacks on terrorism victims, as the families of these victims failed to provide sufficient evidence. This ruling avoided addressing Section 230, a crucial internet law that shields tech companies from liability for content posted by third parties on their platforms.
