TLDR:
- US Supreme Court hears arguments in Murthy v Missouri case regarding government’s power over online misinformation.
- Plaintiffs argue that White House requests to take down coronavirus misinformation on social media violate the first amendment.
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Murthy v Missouri, where plaintiffs argue that government requests to remove coronavirus misinformation on social media platforms constitute censorship and violate the first amendment. The arguments centered around the government’s ability to persuade social media companies to take down harmful content, with the plaintiffs claiming coercion and violation of constitutional rights. The case has sparked debates about the government’s role in regulating online information and the boundaries of free speech online.
Full Article:
The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Murthy v Missouri, where plaintiffs argue that government requests to remove coronavirus misinformation on social media platforms constitute censorship and violate the first amendment. The arguments began with the principal deputy solicitor general of the justice department asserting that the government’s communications were persuasions, not coercion.
Plaintiffs, including state attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, as well as right-wing figures like Jim Hoft from The Gateway Pundit, argue that the government is coercing platforms to censor speech in violation of constitutional rights. The case has brought up questions about the government’s power over online information and the responsibility of social media companies in regulating harmful content.
The justices, including both conservative and liberal members, questioned the boundaries of government outreach in influencing content moderation on platforms. There were discussions on historical interactions between the government and media on national security threats and the implications of government pressures on free speech online.