U.S. Supreme Court reviews government efforts to curb online misinformation

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in a social media case involving free speech rights and government efforts to curb misinformation online.

The case stems from lawsuits filed by Republican attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri who accuse government officials of going too far in gaining a platform to combat vaccine and election misinformation.

Last year, lower courts restricted some top officials and agencies in President Joe Biden’s administration from meeting and communicating with social media companies to moderate their content.

The ruling is a victory for conservative advocates who claim the government pressured or colluded with platforms like Facebook and Twitter to censor right-leaning content under the guise of fighting misinformation.

The order applies to a range of agencies including the FBI, State Department, Justice Department and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The decision restricts agencies and officials from meeting with social media companies or labeling posts that contain “free speech” protected by the First Amendment.

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry praised the “historic ban” at the time, saying it would prevent the Biden administration from “censoring the core political speech of ordinary Americans” on social media.

He accused federal officials of trying to “dictate what Americans can and cannot say on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other platforms about COVID-19, the election, criticism of the government and more.”

The order could severely restrict top government agencies from notifying platforms of false or hateful content that could lead to harmful consequences.

But the government can still notify them of posts involving criminal activity, national security threats and foreign attempts to influence elections, the ruling said.

In addition to communications with social media companies, the ruling restricts agencies from “cooperating, coordinating, and collaborating” with groups such as the Election Integrity Partnership, a coalition of research institutions that addresses election-related falsehoods.

Some misinformation and First Amendment legal experts criticized the ruling, saying authorities need to strike a balance between exposing lies and turning to censoring or restricting free speech.