Supreme Court allows White House contacts with social media firms

[cigaretteman]

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a Republican-led effort to sharply limit White House officials and other federal employees from pressuring social media companies to remove posts from their platforms that the U.S. government deems problematic.

Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter.

State leaders in Missouri and Louisiana, in addition to individual social media users, filed a lawsuit accusing the Biden administration of violating the First Amendment by operating a sprawling federal “censorship enterprise” to improperly influence platforms to modify or take down posts related to public health and elections.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court said the challengers did not have legal grounds — or standing — to bring the case against the Biden administration because the states and individuals could not show they were directly harmed by the communication between federal officials and social media platforms.



Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said companies like Facebook and YouTube have longstanding content-moderation policies that place warning labels on certain posts and delete others. The challengers, Barrett wrote, did not demonstrate that the companies’ actions to remove posts were traceable to the government.
🧘
Follow Health & wellness
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch, dissented.
The case, known as Murthy v. Missouri, gave the Supreme Court an opportunity to shape how government officials interact with social media companies and communicate with the public online. The dispute is one of several before the justices this term that tests Republican-backed claims that social media companies are working with Democratic allies to silence conservative voices.



The decision could have major implications for the U.S. government’s efforts to combat foreign disinformation during a critical election year when nearly half of the world’s population will go to the polls.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/26/supreme-court-social-media-white-house/

 

[Finance85]

The thread headline is patently false. They didn't rule on the merits.

Jeesh.

 

[Rifler]

Zero standing,.. SCOTUS punted on this, just like the mifepristone ruling.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

This is a terrible decision. Anyone asking why, should ask themselves how they will feel about this when the next "trump" gets elected.

 

[Finance85]

This is a terrible decision. Anyone asking why, should ask themselves how they will feel about this when the next "trump" gets elected.

No standing. Think it through please.

 

[Menace Sockeyes]

There are going to be a lot more of these “no standing” decisions with MAGAt litigants. Good call. Even SCOTUS is tired of the right’s victim complex. But of course the bought and paid for wing of the court, Alito and Thomas, dissent.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

No standing. Think it through please.

https://i.makeagif.com/media/4-05-2019/4gKglp.gif

 

[Finance85]

There are going to be a lot more of these “no standing” decisions with MAGAt litigants. Good call. Even SCOTUS is tired of the right’s victim complex. But of course the bought and paid for wing of the court, Alito and Thomas, dissent.

Had there been standing, and harm could actually have been shown, the outcome would have likely been different. I would hope nobody would want the federal government telling social media companies to censor content. It shouldn't be a partisan thing. We are finding out the government lied to us about many things COVID, and what weren't outright lies were insufficient data. It's tough to believe the government doesn't always tell the truth or work in our best interests. It's tough for human beings to deal with the possibility of our trust being betrayed.

 

[Aardvark86]

The thread headline is patently false. They didn't rule on the merits.

Jeesh.

...and in true WaPo fashion, the first line of the article itself reflects a certain...positioning.

I tend to agree with you that it's a much closer case if there were sufficient causally related injury to support standing (which there wasn't), but I'm less certain the G loses. As reflected elsewhere, I'd think the court would be very troubled trying to define the line where government coercion starts and goes beyond mere puffery (though CDA immunity threats would be a plausible place to begin).

 

[theiacowtipper]

Had there been standing, and harm could actually have been shown, the outcome would have likely been different. I would hope nobody would want the federal government telling social media companies to censor content. It shouldn't be a partisan thing. We are finding out the government lied to us about many things COVID, and what weren't outright lies were insufficient data. It's tough to believe the government doesn't always tell the truth or work in our best interests. It's tough for human beings to deal with the possibility of our trust being betrayed.

But see, you are repeating a discredited MAGA narrative. We are of course in agreement that the government can’t tell social media what to publish. The government can’t threaten or coerce. This case would have revolved around suggestion. Does the government have the right to flag posts as disinformation and suggest bringing them down.

I don’t know there was an instance of the government retaliating or threatening retaliation when they weren’t.

 

[seminole97]

But see, you are repeating a discredited MAGA narrative. We are of course in agreement that the government can’t tell social media what to publish. The government can’t threaten or coerce.

"The White House defendants made it very clear to social-media companies what they wanted suppressed and what they wanted amplified," wrote Doughty. "Faced with unrelenting pressure from the most powerful office in the world, the social-media companies apparently complied."

Doughty quoted communications from administration officials to social media company employees, saying they represent "examples of coercion exercised by the White House defendants." Here's a small sampling:

• "Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately. Please remove this account immediately.”
• To Facebook: “Are you guys ****ing serious? I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today.”
• “This is a concern that is shared at the highest (and I mean highest) levels of the WH”
• “Hey folks, wanted to flag the below tweet and am wondering if we can get moving on the process of having it removed. ASAP”

 

[Aardvark86]

But see, you are repeating a discredited MAGA narrative. We are of course in agreement that the government can’t tell social media what to publish. The government can’t threaten or coerce. This case would have revolved around suggestion. Does the government have the right to flag posts as disinformation and suggest bringing them down.

I don’t know there was an instance of the government retaliating or threatening retaliation when they weren’t.

If I recall from the record, there were specific references to opening up the CDA's immunity provisions legislatively. That's a threat (albeit one that might be difficult to execute on given the legislative process), and a pretty big one, to a social media company. So, I agree with you that most of the arm twisting described in the record (including that in the previous post) didn't rise to that level, but there was stuff here that a judge could reasonably find crossed a line.

 

[Finance85]

But see, you are repeating a discredited MAGA narrative. We are of course in agreement that the government can’t tell social media what to publish. The government can’t threaten or coerce. This case would have revolved around suggestion. Does the government have the right to flag posts as disinformation and suggest bringing them down.

I don’t know there was an instance of the government retaliating or threatening retaliation when they weren’t.

No, it has nothing to do with MAGA. The government not only lied about COVID to us, but they branded any challenge to their lies as disinformation.

Read the transcript from the oral arguments before SCOTUS, or the evidence presented at trial. The coercion was real. The point was made that when the FBI suggests something, it's not really taken as just a suggestion.

 

[Aardvark86]

The point was made that when the FBI suggests something, it's not really taken as just a suggestion.

Sorta reminds me of a story from a buddy who was GC of a location technology company. They got called into CIA unprompted for a meeting. The meeting starts with the CIA guy, Bill ("you don't need to know my last name") demonstratively taking the battery from his cell phone to show that he understands that they work(ed) on dual band tech that amd can be located as long as there's power to the system, regardless of whether it's on or off. He starts by asking "what are you guys doing with all of these procurements in the middle east?" My friend, something of a smartass, replies "you're the CIA, aren't you supposed to know that already?" and then pivots to "they're very routine e-911 bolt-ons to the national telecoms." Bill says "so how's it going?" "Win some lose some," replies my friend, "our biggest problem is getting sufficient qualified techs to install our boxes on cell towers." Long pause. Bill says, "we could help supply you with techs."

 

[cigaretteman]

It often seems that Justice Samuel Alito would be happier swapping out his black robes for the garb of whichever right-wing plaintiffs have arrived before the court to air their culture-war grievances.
On Wednesday, Alito was at it again, dissenting at length from the court’s 6-to-3 decision that threw out a conservative challenge to the Biden administration. The White House had tried to counteract the reams of misinformation being spread on social media sites during the Covid pandemic and the aftermath of the 2020 election, urging social media sites to regulate what was allowed to be posted. Two Republican states and five private citizens cried “censorship!” and said the administration had infringed on their right to free expression, but the court’s majority said they had no right to bring the lawsuit.
Referring to the plaintiffs as “victims” of government censorship who “simply wanted to speak out on a question of the utmost public importance,” Alito wrote grandly, “if the lower courts’ assessment of the voluminous record is correct, this is one of the most important free speech cases to reach this court in years.”
That is a very big “if,” as the court’s majority noted in tossing the suit for lack of standing. Not only could the plaintiffs not show “any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants’ conduct,” but the lower courts’ assessment of the record was, in fact, far from correct. Many of the district court’s findings, on which the increasingly off-the-wall U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit relied, “unfortunately appear to be clearly erroneous,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT


During oral arguments in the case, several justices expressed similar concerns with the loose relationship to the truth that Benjamin Aguiñaga, Louisiana’s solicitor general and one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, had. “I have such a problem with your brief,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told him. “You omit information that changes the context of some of your claims. You attribute things to people who it didn’t happen to.”
Aguiñaga said he was sorry “if any aspect of our brief was not as forthcoming as it should have been” — an unusually frank admission of dishonesty by a government official.
And yet his distortions appeared to pose no problem for Alito, who seemed as eager as any Facebook anti-vaxxer to trample basic facts and evidence in service of the right to spew dangerous lies in public without consequences. As Barrett pointed out regarding Jill Hines, one of the plaintiffs, Alito “draws links that Hines herself has not set forth, often based on injuries that Hines never claimed.”
Making up facts to reach the conclusion you want to reach isn’t a Supreme Court justice’s job, of course, but it’s entirely in character for a committed culture warrior.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/opinion/alito-censorship-covid.html

 

[abby97]

There are going to be a lot more of these “no standing” decisions with MAGAt litigants. Good call. Even SCOTUS is tired of the right’s victim complex. But of course the bought and paid for wing of the court, Alito and Thomas, dissent.

There is no need to take a case then rule there is no standing. If 9 justices can't discuss among themselves before they hear a case if the litigants have standing, then they should not hear the case at all. I think there should be some type of expedited process to determine if standing is the issue.

 

[Finance85]

It often seems that Justice Samuel Alito would be happier swapping out his black robes for the garb of whichever right-wing plaintiffs have arrived before the court to air their culture-war grievances.
On Wednesday, Alito was at it again, dissenting at length from the court’s 6-to-3 decision that threw out a conservative challenge to the Biden administration. The White House had tried to counteract the reams of misinformation being spread on social media sites during the Covid pandemic and the aftermath of the 2020 election, urging social media sites to regulate what was allowed to be posted. Two Republican states and five private citizens cried “censorship!” and said the administration had infringed on their right to free expression, but the court’s majority said they had no right to bring the lawsuit.
Referring to the plaintiffs as “victims” of government censorship who “simply wanted to speak out on a question of the utmost public importance,” Alito wrote grandly, “if the lower courts’ assessment of the voluminous record is correct, this is one of the most important free speech cases to reach this court in years.”
That is a very big “if,” as the court’s majority noted in tossing the suit for lack of standing. Not only could the plaintiffs not show “any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants’ conduct,” but the lower courts’ assessment of the record was, in fact, far from correct. Many of the district court’s findings, on which the increasingly off-the-wall U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit relied, “unfortunately appear to be clearly erroneous,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT


During oral arguments in the case, several justices expressed similar concerns with the loose relationship to the truth that Benjamin Aguiñaga, Louisiana’s solicitor general and one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, had. “I have such a problem with your brief,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told him. “You omit information that changes the context of some of your claims. You attribute things to people who it didn’t happen to.”
Aguiñaga said he was sorry “if any aspect of our brief was not as forthcoming as it should have been” — an unusually frank admission of dishonesty by a government official.
And yet his distortions appeared to pose no problem for Alito, who seemed as eager as any Facebook anti-vaxxer to trample basic facts and evidence in service of the right to spew dangerous lies in public without consequences. As Barrett pointed out regarding Jill Hines, one of the plaintiffs, Alito “draws links that Hines herself has not set forth, often based on injuries that Hines never claimed.”
Making up facts to reach the conclusion you want to reach isn’t a Supreme Court justice’s job, of course, but it’s entirely in character for a committed culture warrior.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/opinion/alito-censorship-covid.html

The plaintiffs were the states. Once you understand that, the opinions will make a little more sense.

 

[Aardvark86]

The plaintiffs were the states. Once you understand that, the opinions will make a little more sense.

there were also some private individuals, but agreed that the states' standing was particularly wacky,.

 

[Finance85]

there were also some private individuals, but agreed that the states' standing was particularly wacky,.

Yup, but the standing of the individuals was still questioned, and the suits were brought by the AG's.