Big Decision By Supreme Court
In a groundbreaking decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has dismissed the allegation that the Biden Administration pressured social media platforms into removing content it deemed hazardous.
The states that raised this claim lacked standing, the court said. This was a sensible ruling, but some argue that the court could and should have gone farther to reject the grievance outright.
Understanding Government Influence
Government representatives can share opinions and even exert influence on journalists, editorial boards and social media companies without foul play. This is okay, provided they don’t threaten to use government power to penalize them. This could be whether they comply or not.
This influential role, like any position of public power, comes with its fair share of criticism. Some of it might be surface-level and self-serving, but it can also stem from significant public policy disagreements. It varies.
The Essence of the First Amendment
Essentially, the First Amendment only comes into play if the government threatens legal enforcement or financial penalties due to a speaker’s statements. This includes threats of police involvement or withholding a tax break or building contract.
However, the most recent case brought before the Supreme Court doesn’t relate to this issue. The court case instead primarily hinges on whether it’s within the free speech rights of the Biden Administration to encourage social media platforms to remove misleading posts.
There’s no suggestion of a sinister deal, e.g., “nice little company, a shame if something happened to it.” Instead, the administration expressed the belief that misinformation can damage democracy and public health. There’s little denying that.
The Role of Government in a Pandemic
The government has a right, even a responsibility, to push back against information that questions public trust in vaccines or disseminates baseless conspiracy theories. This is especially relevant during a pandemic.
Where conservative viewpoints see a conspiracy, others see a government working hard to ensure their social media policies align with public health priorities.
Remarks About Previous Administrations
Interestingly enough, during the Trump administration, there was no legal pushback for the then-president calling news organizations “enemies of the people.”
Future Considerations
If an administration, be it Biden’s or another’s, demands a social media company to silence an account or else face punishment from the federal government, that would be a different case entirely. In that scenario, it’s likely we’d side with the targeted social media company.
But here, a public tongue-lashing is just a tongue-lashing. There’s no public policy consequence.
Remember, it’s important to provide accurate information and avoid spreading misinformation. Misinformation can harm public health, which is very important, especially during a pandemic. A government has the responsibility to protect its citizens and ensure they receive accurate information.
In conclusion, the government can and should continue to push for policy that is beneficial to public health. That includes the removal of misleading information from such widely-used platforms. However, there should always be a check to ensure the government isn’t overstepping its boundaries and infringing upon the freedom of speech.