Supreme Court upholds govt's role in social media content moderation
3 Min Read
The 6-3 vote concluded that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to sue, a decision that could have significant implications for efforts to combat misinformation ahead of the upcoming elections.
-
App logos for Facebook, left, and X, formerly known as Twitter, are seen on a mobile phone in Los Angeles, Saturday, March 16, 2024 (AP)
The US Supreme Court ruled against a Republican-led attempt to limit government intervention in social media content moderation.
The 6-3 vote concluded that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to sue, a decision that could have significant implications for efforts to combat what was described as misinformation ahead of the upcoming elections.
"The plaintiffs, without any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants' conduct, ask us to conduct a review of the years-long communications between dozens of federal officials, across different agencies, with different social media platforms, about different topics," Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority.
"This court's standing doctrine prevents us from (exercising such) general legal oversight of the other branches of government."
Read more: Trump vows to settle Ukraine conflict before potential reelection
The case originated from a lawsuit filed by Republican attorneys general from Louisiana and Missouri. They claimed that Biden administration officials overstepped by pressuring social media platforms to moderate content related to vaccines and elections, thereby infringing on the free speech rights protected under the First Amendment.
Previously, a lower court had imposed restrictions on Biden administration officials, limiting their interactions with social media companies regarding content moderation.
The Supreme Court's decision represents a setback for conservative groups and advocates who argued that government intervention has led to censorship of right-wing content on platforms like Facebook and Twitter (now X). These advocates contended that such actions under the pretext of combating misinformation undermined free expression.
The ruling could bolster efforts by federal authorities to collaborate with social media platforms in addressing misinformation campaigns during a critical election year. But it also underscores the limitations imposed by the court's standing doctrine on the scope of legal challenges against government actions related to online content regulation.
Read more: Biden's candidacy hinges on performance at upcoming debate, Hersh says
This year's elections in the US promise to be the most intense as the country is facing an unprecedented wave of political violence.
US political violence has, in fact, become the world's top threat, according to consulting firm Eurasia Group’s founder and president, Ian Bremmer, during Bloomberg's podcast, In the City.
He said that right now is a “horrible time for an election” in the US, noting that political violence has soared after former President Donald Trump’s criminal conviction last week.
"Unprecedented things are happening in US politics on a weekly basis, and Americans are normalizing those things. You’re just getting used to it. It’s the frog in the boiling pot. This is not a sign of a stable democracy."
CNN on Thursday is set to host the first presidential debate between Biden and Trump at 9 pm Eastern Time. The event will run for 90 minutes and will take place in the battleground state of Georgia.
