Justices heard arguments in the Murthy v. Missouri case, in which the White House is accused of coercing social media companies to censor speech.
at social media firms? If so, how much? What if national security is at risk? And what if some of the censored speech turns out to be accurate?Murthy v. Missouriforced Facebook, X, and other platforms to censor speech — and controversial political speech in particular.
Former Biden administration chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci, for many the face of the pandemic, came in for special criticism, with protest signs charging “Fauci is the tyrant the founding fathers warned us about” and “Fauci’s lies matter.”The attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri brought the case in 2022, arguing the government overstepped in combating what it deemed to be misinformation.
Fletcher stressed that the government was simply persuading the companies to act rather than coercing. That brought a line of questioning from Justice Samuel Alito. Alito gestured to the press section of the courtroom to emphasize his point, though there wasn’t a lot to point to. Unlike last year’s student loans case or the recenthearings , which featured packed press galleries, media attendance at the hearing was relatively sparse.
The statement reflected a general theme of the defense, that there was a lack of direct traceability between government action and controversial posts being removed, which sometimes happened months or even years after the jawboning.Bantam Books v.
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
SOTU: Biden Goes Off Script to Scold Supreme Court Justices Over DobbsSource of breaking news and analysis, insightful commentary and original reporting, curated and written specifically for the new generation of independent and conservative thinkers.
Read more »
Western states square off with Biden administration over water rights before Supreme Court justicesThe Supreme Court cleared the way for the federal government to intervene in a Western state water dispute in 2018, but having gained an inch, the states worry that the feds now want a mile.
Read more »
Supreme Court justices appear skeptical of Texas and Florida social media lawsThese cases raise a critical question for the First Amendment and the future of social media: whether states can force the platforms to carry content they find hateful or objectionable.
Read more »
Supreme Court justices cautious about limiting government's communication with social media companiesDuring oral arguments on Monday, both liberal and conservative justices on the Supreme Court appeared wary of imposing broad limits on how the government can communicate with social media companies about problematic content it thinks should be removed. The case at issue is called Murthy v. Missouri, and it asks the court to determine whether the Biden administration’s communications with platforms coerced the companies to take down content, like misinformation about covid vaccines, thereby violating the First Amendment.
Read more »
Docs on Supreme Court Justices' Travel Fuel Reform DemandsJessica Corbett is a senior editor and staff writer for Common Dreams.
Read more »
Justices Sotomayor and Barrett Assure Americans Supreme Court Isn’t PartisanSee multiple perspectives from The Hill, Washington Examiner, and Politico at AllSides.com.
Read more »