SCOTUS hears arguments on social media free speech case
The US Supreme Court is hearing arguments on Monday in its review of whether the Biden administration violated the First Amendment when pressuring social media platforms to censor inaccurate posts about the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines.
Yahoo Finance Legal Reporter Alexis Keenan explains the core arguments of the case, Murthy v. Missouri.
For more expert insight and the latest market action, click here to watch this full episode of Yahoo Finance Live.
Editor's note: This article was written by Luke Carberry Mogan.
Video Transcript
RACHELLE AKUFFO: Supreme Court arguments are now underway in a case to decide when government pressure to remove social media posts violates Americans First Amendment right to free speech.
Now, the case stems from the Biden administration's efforts to influence social media posts concerning COVID-19 vaccinations. Let's bring in "Yahoo Finance's" Alexis Keenan to tell us more. An interesting test of free speech and influence in the digital age here.
ALEXIS KEENAN: Yes. And not the Supreme Court's first this year, it's taking up this case. It's about First Amendment speech protections for companies, for individuals. And they're talking about when the government puts pressure on social media to remove posts that were posted by users.
Now, on one side of this case, you have state attorneys general from Missouri and Louisiana, and also five private users of Facebook, X, YouTube. On the other side, you have the Biden administration. And this all arose back during the pandemic, when the Biden White House along with the CDC, the FBI, the Surgeon General's Office, as well as a cybersecurity agency, they asked these social media companies to remove posts concerning COVID-19 anti-vaccination information, also election information.
And they're saying that those expressed views that the White House considered harmful. Now, the states and the users, they say that pressure from the administration converted the social media companies into state actors. They say that the posts that they were censored there that the social media companies basically turned into state actors, because they did it at the government's direction.
Now, the states wrote in their brief this, they said, the administration's officials complained that the government must be allowed to speak freely. That flips the First Amendment, they say, on its head. The government can speak freely on any topic, they say, but cannot pressure and coerce private companies to censor ordinary Americans.
Now, the Biden administration, I want to read to you their argument. Here's how they put it. They say, so long as the government seeks to inform and persuade rather than to compel, its speech poses no First Amendment concern, even if government officials state their views in strong terms, and, even if private actors change their speech or conduct in response to those requests.
Now, the lower courts here, they mostly ruled in favor of the states and the social media users who put up those posts. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, originally, issued an injunction that stopped the White House from conducting these kinds of communications with the social media companies.
But the Supreme Court wants it decided to take up this case. They put all that on hold. So that is what is currently being argued in the court. Arguments still going on as we speak. Ladies?
RACHELLE AKUFFO: Certainly, an interesting line there between persuasion and coercion there, especially, if you're a government official, considering that pressure there.
I appreciate you breaking all that down for us. Our very own, Alexis Keenan.
