Supreme Court blocks restrictions on Biden administration efforts to get platforms to remove social media posts
Supreme Court blocks restrictions on Biden administration efforts to get platforms to remove social media posts
The Biden administration had called a lower court injunction “unprecedented” for restricting officials’ ability to raise concerns about problematic social media content on issues like Covid-19.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday blocked in full a lower court ruling that would have curbed the Biden administration's ability to communicate with social media companies about contentious content on such issues as Covid-19.
The decision in a short unsigned order puts on hold a Louisiana-based judge's ruling in July that specific agencies and officials should be barred from meeting with companies to discuss whether certain content should be stifled.
The Supreme Court also agreed to immediately take up the government's appeal, meaning it will hear arguments and issue a ruling on the merits in its current term, which runs until the end of June.
Wait, the Supreme Court helped the Biden administration?
Probably so that a republican administration can strangle social media down the road.
So far, yes. They’re allowing things to continue as they did before this case was brought.
But much more importantly, they’ve agreed to rule on the merits of the case. While this order might make you think they’re in favor of the administration, they could easily flip against when the issue the actual ruling. Then it’s a more permanent action.
I see this as a very important issue of our time. Social media platforms have speed up the exchange of opinions and information tremendously. But they’re terrible at preventing the spread of misinformation. That’s shouldn’t always result in government intervention, but sometimes it should. There are many restrictions on the first amendment that are justified.
During a global emergency about a serious health hazard, it seems entirely justified to place more restrictions on first amendment rights and allow government intervention when the private companies fail to act.
Thank you, that was quite an insight explanation of the issue!
I look forward to hearing more about this when it develops.
While I’m concerned that this is a trap, the fact that Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch are against it makes me feel a little better. I’m still wary, though.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The decision in a short unsigned order puts on hold a Louisiana-based judge's ruling in July that specific agencies and officials should be barred from meeting with companies to discuss whether certain content should be stifled.
"At this time in the history of our country, what the court has done, I fear, will be seen by some as giving the government a green light to use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news.
We look forward to dismantling Joe Biden's vast censorship enterprise at the nation's highest court," Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said in a statement Friday.
Judge Terry Doughty, who was appointed by Trump, barred officials from “communication of any kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”
But the appeals court still required the White House, the FBI and top health officials not to “coerce or significantly encourage” social media companies to remove content the Biden administration considers misinformation.
Prelogar argued that the original injunction is “vastly overbroad,” saying “it covers thousands of federal officers and employees, and it applies to communications with and about all social media platforms” regarding content moderation on such topics as national security and criminal matters.
The original article contains 644 words, the summary contains 221 words. Saved 66%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!