The United States Supreme Court is expected to hear disputes today between Republican-led states and Mr. Biden's administration over how far the federal government can take down controversial social media posts related to issues like Covid-19. or security in elections.
The court will hear arguments today in a lawsuit filed by the states of Louisiana and Missouri, as well as by several individuals, who accuse the US administration of using social media platforms to censor, in violation of the Constitution, conservative views. The administration claims that none of the actions included in the states' accusations were coercive intrusions.
So far, lower court rulings have been in favor of the states and against the federal government.
The Supreme Court has blocked the implementation of their decisions, pending its decision on this matter. The lawsuit includes posts that were made on Facebook, X, formerly known as Twitter, and other social platforms.
The Supreme Court is dealing with a number of issues related to social media.
On Friday, the court set standards for when public officials can block their social media followers.
Less than a month ago, the court heard arguments on laws passed by Republicans in Florida and Texas that prohibit large social media companies from removing posts because of the views expressed.
The issues over the laws passed by states and the one that will be considered today involve more or less the same issue, complaints that social media platforms are censoring conservative views.
The states allege that staff members of the White House communications directorate, the FBI and US cybersecurity agencies are among those who have exerted pressure to make changes to the content of posts on Facebook, X and other platforms. .
“It is deeply troubling that the government uses its power to prevent people from exercising their right to free speech,” Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a video posted online.
The US administration claims that none of the actions included in the states' accusations were interference.
“States have yet to bring any cases in which government officials have exerted pressure to influence the decisions of social platforms by threatening to face government actions that could harm them,” writes government attorney Elizabeth Prelogar.
The social media companies are not parties to this case.
Free speech advocates say the court should use this case to determine the proper balance between the government's exercise of power and interference that threatens freedom of expression.
“The government has no right to threaten social media platforms with censorship of freedom of expression, which is a right protected by law, but it must be able to become part of the public discussion in order to govern effectively. effective and to inform citizens about its positions”, says Alex Abdo, from “Columbia” University.
An appeals court panel based in New Orleans, Louisiana, ruled last year that Mr. Biden's administration had likely exercised unconstitutional pressure on social media platforms.
According to the appeal decision, officials cannot attempt to “interfere with or significantly induce” changes in the content of social media posts.
The appeal also limited a more sweeping ruling by a federal judge that wanted to expand the number of government officials affected by efforts to intervene to change content.
The White House took the matter to the Supreme Court. In October, through a decision, where the members of the Supreme Court were divided, this body decided to take the case into consideration and suspend the implementation of the decision of the Court of Appeal, until the final decision is taken by it.
The three members of the Supreme Court Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas were against and expressed in favor of maintaining the appeal decision.
Arguing for the opposing party, Supreme Court member Alito said that “at this point in the country's history, the Court's decision, I fear, will be seen as a green light for the government to use tactics to distort views in a increasingly dominant means of communication for the distribution of news. It's really unfortunate.”
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in early summer.