Source: AFP
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a Republican-led proposal to limit government contacts with social media companies to moderate their content, a decision that could bolster official efforts to combat disinformation in a key election year.
The decision gives a victory to President Joe Biden’s administration and top government agencies ahead of the presidential vote in November, allowing them to continue alerting major platforms like Facebook and X to what they consider false or hateful content.
The justices, voting 6-3, dismissed the case on the grounds that the challengers — including two states and social media users — had not suffered a direct injury that would provide legal standing to sue.
“The plaintiffs, with no specific connection between their injuries and the defendants’ conduct, are asking us to review years of communications between dozens of federal officials, in different agencies, with different social media platforms, about different topics,” wrote Justice Amy Coney Barrett for the majority.
![](https://images.yen.com.gh/images/981e3be72950ac4b.jpg?impolicy=cropped-image&imwidth=256)
![](https://images.yen.com.gh/images/981e3be72950ac4b.jpg?impolicy=cropped-image&imwidth=256)
Read also
The UK is facing a strained economy after the election
“The settled doctrine of this court prevents us from (exercising such) general legal oversight of the other branches of government.”
The decision was a setback for conservative advocates who claim the government pressured or worked with major platforms to censor right-wing content under the guise of fighting misinformation.
“For months, high-ranking government officials have relentlessly pressured Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito, who dissented with Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
“Because the court unreasonably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent,” Alito added, arguing that one of the plaintiffs had standing to sue.
“Center” schedule
Republican lawmaker Jim Jordan, who has led a sweeping legal assault against disinformation researchers, also expressed dismay at the decision.
“The First Amendment comes first for a reason, and free speech should be protected from any infringement by the government,” said Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
![](https://images.yen.com.gh/images/b26927d97aab41f7.jpg?impolicy=cropped-image&imwidth=256)
![](https://images.yen.com.gh/images/b26927d97aab41f7.jpg?impolicy=cropped-image&imwidth=256)
Read also
Boeing can avoid criminal charges for violations: report
“While we respectfully disagree with the court’s decision, our investigation has shown the need for legislative reform … to better protect Americans who are harmed by the unconstitutional censorship-industry complex.”
The case stems from a lawsuit by the Republican attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri, who alleged that government officials overreached in their bid to get platforms to fight vaccine and election misinformation, violating social media users’ First Amendment free speech rights networking.
Last year, a lower court barred top Biden administration officials and agencies from meeting and communicating with social media companies to flag what they considered harmful posts.
The lower court ruling applied to the White House and a number of agencies including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State Department, the Justice Department and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Some experts on misinformation and First Amendment law criticized the lower court’s decision, saying authorities had to strike a balance between blasting falsehoods and turning to censorship or limiting free speech.
![](https://images.yen.com.gh/images/1f93866476d85fa1.jpg?impolicy=cropped-image&imwidth=256)
![](https://images.yen.com.gh/images/1f93866476d85fa1.jpg?impolicy=cropped-image&imwidth=256)
Read also
Germany’s coalition is deadlocked over the 2025 budget
The lawsuits were intended to “weaponize” the First Amendment, which would undermine the government’s ability to defend the United States against election meddling and disinformation campaigns, the group Accountable Tech said as it hailed Wednesday’s decision.
“Collaboration between government and platforms on foreign influence campaigns, election integrity and public health emergencies is essential to maintaining public safety and a healthy democracy,” the group said in a statement.
“This decision comes at a pivotal time just months before the November election, as tech companies tighten trust and security teams and recklessly develop new AI products that contribute to rapid online disinformation.”
Source: AFP