|
|
|
A Supreme Court ruling in a social media case could set standards
Legal Business Articles |
2024/03/19 11:14
|
In a busy term that could set standards for free speech in the digital age, the Supreme Court on Monday is taking up a dispute between Republican-led states and the Biden administration over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social media posts on topics including COVID-19 and election security.
The justices are hearing arguments in a lawsuit filed by Louisiana, Missouri and other parties accusing officials in the Democratic administration of leaning on the social media platforms to unconstitutionally squelch conservative points of view. Lower courts have sided with the states, but the Supreme Court blocked those rulings while it considers the issue.
The high court is in the midst of a term heavy with social media issues. On Friday, the court laid out standards for when public officials can block their social media followers. Less than a month ago, the court heard arguments over Republican-passed laws in Florida and Texas that prohibit large social media companies from taking down posts because of the views they express.
The cases over state laws and the one being argued Monday are variations on the same theme, complaints that the platforms are censoring conservative viewpoints. The states argue that White House communications staffers, the surgeon general, the FBI and the U.S. cybersecurity agency are among those who coerced changes in online content on Facebook, X (formerly Twitter) and other media platforms.
“It’s a very, very threatening thing when the federal government uses the power and authority of the government to block people from exercising their freedom of speech,” Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a video her office posted online.
The administration responds that none of the actions the states complain about come close to problematic coercion. The states “still have not identified any instance in which any government official sought to coerce a platform’s editorial decisions with a threat of adverse government action,” wrote Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer. Prelogar wrote that states also can’t “point to any evidence that the government ever imposed any sanction when the platforms declined to moderate content the government had flagged — as routinely occurred.”
The companies themselves are not involved in the case.
Free speech advocates say the court should use the case to draw an appropriate line between the government’s acceptable use of the bully pulpit and coercive threats to free speech.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Intellectual Property Law |
|
|
Legal Professional Business |
|
|
Medical Malpractice Issues |
|
|
Mergers & Acquisitions Matters |
|
|
Political and Legal Trends |
|
|
Venture Business Articles |
|
|
Careers in the Legal Sector |
|
|
Legal Outlook & Information |
|
|
|
|
| © www.timelegalnews.com. All rights reserved.
The content and articles provided on this website have been prepared by Time Legal News as an informational source and service to the legal internet community and is not to act or constitute as any type of legal advice or consultation with an actual licensed attorney or legal professional in any case or circumstance.Time Legal News blog posts and comments are available for educational purposes only and should not be used to determine or valuate a legal situation or matter. Affordable Law Firm Website Design
|
|
Time Legal News RSS Feed
