The Supreme Court on Monday appeared deeply skeptical of arguments by two conservative states that the First Amendment bars the government from pressuring social media platforms to remove online misinformation.
In more than 90 minutes of oral arguments that occasionally veered into the justices’ personal frustrations with the press, several conservative justices sided with the liberal wing in appearing to doubt claims by two states that the Biden administration violated the Constitution with the practice.
Here are key takeaways from Monday’s arguments:
Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett point to potential for fallout: In a series of hypothetical questions, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett signaled concern about setting a standard that restricted the government’s ability to communicate with the platforms over content that might be problematic. Such a standard, they seemed to suggest, could be damaging. Kavanaugh noted it is “not uncommon for government officials to protest an upcoming [newspaper] story on surveillance or detention policy and say, you know, ‘If you run that, it’s going to harm the war effort and put Americans at risk.’” He asked whether the government couldn’t request the platforms to remove content that was, for instance, posed danger to American troops.
Alito accuses Biden admin of “pestering Facebook”: Not all of the conservatives appeared ready to back the Biden administration. Led by Justice Samuel Alito, several raised concerns about the extent of the contact between the government agencies and the private platforms over posts they wanted stricken. In one key exchange, Alito laid out a case for how unusual it was that federal officials were pressuring the sites to remove content. Alito, among the most stalwart conservatives on the court, wondered aloud what would happen if the government had made similar requests of traditional media companies, like newspapers and cable television outlets.
Alito brings up Section 230: Alito argued that the difference between traditional and social media is that the federal government ostensibly holds the power to revoke protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that immunize the sites from lawsuits involving content moderation. In other words, Alito said, the government had “big clubs” it could use to try to coerce the social media companies to cooperate. Fletcher pointed to the context of the communication between the Biden administration and the social media companies. “This was a time when thousands of Americans were still dying every week and there was a hope that getting everyone vaccinated could stop the pandemic,” he said.
Read more key takeaways here.
Source: www.cnn.com