WASHINGTON (AP) — In a busy term that could set standards for free speech in the digital age, the Supreme Court on Monday is taking up a dispute between Republican-led states and the Biden administration over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social media posts on topics including COVID-19 and election security.

The justices are currently listening to arguments in a lawsuit brought by Louisiana, Missouri, and other groups. These groups claim that officials in the Democratic administration have influenced social media platforms to unfairly suppress conservative perspectives, which they argue is a violation of the Constitution. Previous court decisions have favored the states, but the Supreme Court has put a hold on those rulings while they examine the matter.

The supreme court is currently dealing with numerous social media related matters. In a recent ruling, the court outlined guidelines for government officials on when they can block individuals from their social media accounts. Just a few weeks prior, the court heard arguments on laws passed by Republican lawmakers in Florida and Texas that restrict big social media platforms from removing posts based on their content.

The lawsuits involving state laws and the one being debated on Monday share a common issue – accusations that the platforms are suppressing conservative perspectives.

The states claim that White House communication personnel, the surgeon general, the FBI, and the U.S. cybersecurity agency pressured for alterations in internet content on Facebook, X (formerly known as Twitter), and other digital platforms.

The Louisiana Attorney General, Liz Murrill, stated in a video posted by her office that it is extremely concerning when the federal government utilizes its power and authority to restrict individuals from practicing their right to freedom of speech.

The government has stated that the actions mentioned by states do not amount to coercion. According to Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, there has been no evidence of any government official using threats to influence a platform’s editorial decisions. Prelogar also mentioned that there has been no instance of the government imposing sanctions for platforms choosing not to moderate content flagged by the government.

The case does not involve the companies directly.

Those who support free speech argue that the court should take this case as an opportunity to distinguish between the government’s rightful use of its influential position and its attempts to use force to limit speech rights.

According to Alex Abdo, the litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, the government should not be allowed to force platforms to censor protected speech. However, the government should have the power to engage in public dialogue in order to effectively govern and communicate its perspectives to the public.

A group of three judges from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans previously decided that the Biden administration may have used unconstitutional tactics to pressure media platforms. The panel stated that government officials cannot try to force or greatly influence changes in online content. Earlier, the panel had limited a broader order issued by a federal judge, who wanted to include additional government officials and forbid any form of encouraging content changes.

In October, the Supreme Court, which was divided, decided to postpone the 5th Circuit’s ruling and agreed to review the case.

The emergency appeal from the Biden administration would have been denied by Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas.

During October, Alito expressed disagreement by writing: “The actions of the Court at this moment in our nation’s history may be perceived by some as granting the Government permission to utilize aggressive techniques to manipulate the expression of opinions on the platform that is becoming increasingly prevalent for spreading news. This is highly regrettable.”

A ruling is anticipated by early summer for Murthy v. Missouri, case number 23-411.

Source: wral.com