Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Technology

US Supreme Court Seems Wary of Curbing US Government Contacts With Social Media Platforms (reuters.com) 113

U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday appeared skeptical of a challenge on free speech grounds to how President Joe Biden's administration encouraged social media platforms to remove posts that federal officials deemed misinformation, including about elections and COVID-19. From a report: The justices heard oral arguments in the administration's appeal of a lower court's preliminary injunction constraining how White House and certain other federal officials communicate with social media platforms. The Republican-led states of Missouri and Louisiana, along with five individual social media users, sued the administration.

They argued that the government's actions violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment free speech rights of users whose posts were removed from platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, now called X. The case tests whether the administration crossed the line from mere communication and persuasion to strong arming or coercing platforms - sometimes called "jawboning" - to unlawfully censor disfavored speech, as lower courts found.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Supreme Court Seems Wary of Curbing US Government Contacts With Social Media Platforms

Comments Filter:
  • by magzteel ( 5013587 ) on Monday March 18, 2024 @04:10PM (#64325959)

    I thought it was illegal for the government to violate your constitutional rights both directly and indirectly by getting 3rd parties to do it for them. Is this incorrect?

    • I thought it was illegal for the government to violate your constitutional rights both directly and indirectly by getting 3rd parties to do it for them. Is this incorrect?

      But Justice Roberts tells us that "the government" is not monolithic, so it's not really the government doing anything.

      • by markdavis ( 642305 ) on Monday March 18, 2024 @04:46PM (#64326087)

        >"But Justice Roberts tells us that "the government" is not monolithic, so it's not really the government doing anything."

        That isn't what he said. From the article:
        ---
        Justice John Roberts told Benjamin Aguinaga, Louisiana's solicitor general, that the government is "not monolithic" and when the government applies pressure, a platform or media outlet "have people they go to, probably in the government, to say, 'Hey, they're trying to get me to do this,' and that person may disagree with what the government's trying to do."
        ---
        My interpretation is that he was saying that the government isn't a single voice ordering social media what to do, so there presumably might would be checks by asking someone else or a different department if there is disagreement. And that wasn't a ruling, it was just questioning. For all you know, he could be playing devil's advocate with the question.

        The reality is I am not so sure there is any due process in the process of the government "warning" or "requesting" platforms about so-called "misinformation" (of which much of it certainly was not). And one media company very well might interpret it as an order, another might use it as an excuse to do what they already wanted to ban.

        • "so-called "misinformation" (of which much of it certainly was not)."

          And its corollary, "much of it certainly was". As always, we argue about where to draw the line.

          • >"And its corollary, "much of it certainly was".

            Agreed. I am a big fan of open/transparent user-driven moderation and discussion.

            >"As always, we argue about where to draw the line."

            As long as it is not the government drawing the line. Bad enough when near-monopolies do it to push their own politics.

          • Here's the problem. The government doesn't have a right to label what is and isn't "misinformation" outside of fraud protections. It's not illegal to lie in the US except under very specific circumstances (under oath, etc.) Private companies have every right to determine what is and isn't on their platforms, and are protected by Section 230 from any liability for such. But the moment the government influences that determination either through suggestion of influence either positive or negative, the plat

            • Was the company being threatened by the govt, or did people in the company welcome the govt because they were worried about what was happening?

    • I thought it was illegal for the government to violate your constitutional rights both directly and indirectly by getting 3rd parties to do it for them. Is this incorrect?

      Not exactly. It is unconstitutional for Congress to do it. The Executive Branch can often find some nook and cranny of USCode on which to base various actions that Congress itself is prohibited from doing overtly.

      • by Zak3056 ( 69287 )

        Not exactly. It is unconstitutional for Congress to do it. The Executive Branch can often find some nook and cranny of USCode on which to base various actions that Congress itself is prohibited from doing overtly.

        That's non-sensical. The US Code consists of laws that have been passed by Congress. Congress cannot delegate powers that it does not possess.

      • by dbialac ( 320955 )
        Talk to a constitutional attorney about that. I'm pretty sure that isn't correct. What I've seen is the executive branch tries things, gets sued and then SCOTUS decides if it was legal to do it or not.
      • I thought it was illegal for the government to violate your constitutional rights both directly and indirectly by getting 3rd parties to do it for them. Is this incorrect?

        Not exactly. It is unconstitutional for Congress to do it. The Executive Branch can often find some nook and cranny of USCode on which to base various actions that Congress itself is prohibited from doing overtly.

        Is it just limited to Congress? Can the police pay a third party to conduct a search without a warrant?
        If that were so, why bother getting a warrant?

        • by schwit1 ( 797399 )

          "If that were so, why bother getting a warrant?"
          That's done today by agencies buying location data they couldn't justify getting a warrant for.

      • Yeah, no.

        Executive authority stems from Article II of the Constitution, and from the powers delegated by the Congress to the Executive through legislative law and bestowed regulatory authority.

        When a regulatory body in the Executive Branch publishes new regulations, they are subject to both Congressional review under the Congressional Review Act, as well as judicial review through lawsuits.

        The Executive Branch does not create law, and no laws enforced came to be without an act of Congress. Period.

    • Justice Thomas can't hear you from his inside his cushy free motor home https://apnews.com/article/sup... [apnews.com] and Justice Alito is away on a free Alaskan vacation https://www.propublica.org/art... [propublica.org]

      • I'm not letting Sotomayor off the hook either with her book sales. https://apnews.com/article/sup... [apnews.com]

      • And as soon as you, or anyone else, can actually relate that to trying to influence any decisions, it becomes relevant. Many have tried and failed. So it is just partisan noise.

        • How could that be proven though? That's kindof the problem, the SC is pretty much above any oversight, they set their oversight rules. There is something of an information wall between the SC and the usual methods we use to do this, there is no SC "Inspector General" that audits this stuff, the responsiblity is up to themselves which is... questionable at best. I think the fact that public opinion of the SC is rock bottom is a real problem.

          It's been brought up how much potential conflict of interest when

          • the SC is pretty much above any oversight

            True, as we've seen with their, "I didn't know I had to report that money" shenanigans. But then, there's always impeachment [history.com].

          • >"It's been brought up how much potential conflict of interest when Thomas and Alito are receiving these gifts from these people and judging on cases they are either directly or indirectly a part of."

            But they were NOT part of any cases directly or indirectly. That was my point. Even so, I agree it is bad optics.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              Thomas' lack of recusal in anything January 6th when his wife was involved pretty heavily in Trumps circles via the text's that came out in those investigations is a pretty bad one in my opinion. Also from the LWT segment

              Here’s a fun fact for you: that was in early June of 2019. Guess where he was at the end of that month? On Harlan Crow’s Indonesian yacht trip. That’s the comfortable laugh of a man looking forward to a free trip and — fingers crossed — a free shirt to go with

        • https://www.propublica.org/art... [propublica.org]

          In 2008 Alito accepts a free Alaskan vacation. Later on the person paying for the vacation has a case before the court. In any other court or jurisdiction a judge would have recused themselves due to conflicts of interest.

          • Sorry, I was focused on Thomas. But I do agree that yes, Alito should have recused himself. Fortunately it didn't affect the outcome of the case (7-1).

        • And why are those 9 people above the ethics rules put onto every other federal judge in the country? Why shouldn't they be beholden to the exact same rules, when they are the final arbiter of all questions of law in the country?

          Why are you ok with that very obvious angle of possible corruption?

          • >"Why are you ok with that very obvious angle of possible corruption?"

            Oh, I am not. Not at all. And it is good we do have a method of impeachment if it becomes needed. But I don't think I am seeing "corruption" in the mentioned examples with Thomas. I did see one instance of Alita not having recused himself, which I think should be challenged.

    • I thought it was illegal for the government to violate your constitutional rights both directly and indirectly by getting 3rd parties to do it for them. Is this incorrect?

      You are correct. The factual circumstances in the case just doesn't seem to fit the description.

    • I thought it was illegal for the government to violate your constitutional rights both directly and indirectly by getting 3rd parties to do it for them.

      It is (by definition) against the law for the government to violate your rights. But not every request for speech by the government is an attempt to illegally compel that speech. Some companies may not want their users to be misinformed regarding communicable diseases, for insurance.

      • I thought it was illegal for the government to violate your constitutional rights both directly and indirectly by getting 3rd parties to do it for them.

        It is (by definition) against the law for the government to violate your rights. But not every request for speech by the government is an attempt to illegally compel that speech. Some companies may not want their users to be misinformed regarding communicable diseases, for insurance.

        But if the government is compelling (or just arm-twisting) private entities to censor your speech where they could not legally do it themselves aren't your rights being violated?

    • I thought it was illegal for the government to violate your constitutional rights both directly and indirectly by getting 3rd parties to do it for them. Is this incorrect?

      Apparently, since the police do it all the time.

    • I thought it was illegal for the government to violate your constitutional rights both directly and indirectly by getting 3rd parties to do it for them. Is this incorrect?

      If you are talking first amendment rights and freedom of speech then you are also talking a logical extension to freedom of association. You can’t have the government compel speech and the public square used to be public, not privately owned. These rights also only apply to what the government is limited in doing, not private individuals. What we really need are government run alternatives to social media, then all constitutional rights would be baked right in as the are in current laws like the ri

    • That is correct. However if there is never any threat of punitive action, much less actual punitive action to suppress speech either at the direction of the government or at the hands of government itself; then speech is not being restrained in any way.

      You can't sue someone for violating your rights, unless they actually violate your rights. Asking you to take lies off the website you run isn't a threat, unless there is an "or else" involved - you can feel free to tell them to suck hard cheese, just as I'

  • by Frank Burly ( 4247955 ) on Monday March 18, 2024 @04:18PM (#64325981)
    On the one hand, teenagers who consent to a vehicle search during a traffic stop are legally uncoerced and can be sent to jail. On the other, a social media company that discussed an email from the CDC and decided that they didn't want their users to see lots of ads for ivermectin was coerced. It will be a fun dissent to read
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Puh-lease. Roberts, Alito, and crew are literally making it up as they go along, demanding or ignoring plain text and meaning whenever it suits their political agenda.

      They're literally playing Calvinball.
      • Puh-lease. Roberts, Alito, and crew are literally making it up as they go along, demanding or ignoring plain text and meaning whenever it suits their political agenda.

        They're literally playing Calvinball.

        Such as their recent 14th Amendment nonsense.

      • by MachineShedFred ( 621896 ) on Monday March 18, 2024 @06:16PM (#64326357) Journal

        This is what happens when "the ends justify the means" takes over. These guys find the result they want, and then reverse-build the decision that creates the result.

        No "originalist" or "textualist" would have agreed with that bullshit 14th Amendment decision. The framers, through the recorded congressional record of the debates, were very clear what they meant by the 14th Amendment, and very specifically about section 3.

        • No "originalist" or "textualist" would have agreed with that bullshit 14th Amendment decision.

          Why do you think that matters? We have gone off the rails quite some time ago. The Truth is whatever it is desired to be and any facts showing otherwise are completely ignored. TL;DR, the coming dictatorship is cemented in place. Reagan laid the groundwork for this shit, but he was ultimately just a pawn. The Bush crime family will either produce the future dictator or be second in command.

      • Calvinball is described on the Wiki thusly (emphases added):

        Calvinball is an improvisational sport/game introduced in a 1990 storyline that involved Calvin's negative experience of joining the school baseball team. Calvinball is a nomic or self-modifying game, a contest of wits, skill and creativity rather than stamina or athletic skill. The game is portrayed as a rebellion against conventional team sports and became a staple of the final five years of the comic. The only consistent rules of the game are th

  • I don't usually do conspiracy theories, but I wouldn't be surprised if the goal of this lawsuit from two republican states really is to get a statement from the Supreme Court affirming the govt's right to interfere with social media. That would allow Trump to crackdown on criticism if he wins the presidency.

    • I don't usually do conspiracy theories, but I wouldn't be surprised if the goal of this lawsuit from two republican states really is to get a statement from the Supreme Court affirming the govt's right to interfere with social media. That would allow Trump to crackdown on criticism if he wins the presidency.

      Was wondering the same thing. However, cracking down on dissent is clearly unconstitutional. If I call the con artist the loser that he is and that post gets removed, clearly the First Amendment is violated. Just because I hurt your feelings by calling you a loser doesn't entitle you, or anyone, to censor the comment.

      That is different than telling people to ingest something which can kill you [usatoday.com] while saying it's safe and it's really the government hiding the "evidence".

      • Lots of things can kill you in a high enough dose. Invermectin is an FDA approved drug. It apparently doesn't work to kill covid at a safe dose, but at an approved dose it won't kill you any more often than a vaccine will. The problem is not taking invermectin under a doctor's care, lots of drugs are prescribed for off-label uses. The problem was taking a dose designed for de-worming horses. If you read that story in USA Today, nowhere would you find that made clear.

        There are a lot of things where gover

    • My feeling is this   speculative post is no troll. The language is prudent and belief in underhanded legalist  behavior well-motivated .  Trick the SUPREMEs  with a cross-purpose case ? No doubt it's tried by  both USA  political parties.
  • A bit more than encouraged. According to the Twitter files. Facebook, Twitter and others had regular meetings with the FBI and others to receive instruction on what posts to censor. As well as getting access to so-called Private Messages.
    • Yeah but the thing with the Twitter files that cuts against this case is the fact that Twitter turned down or ignored like 99%+ of all those requests so from their POV there really isn't much "pressure" being exerted here by the outcomes.

      • > Yeah but the thing with the Twitter files that cuts against this case is the fact that Twitter turned down or ignored like 99%+ of all those requests ..

        Care to provide any citations for this 99% and who were the other 1%?

        The ‘Twitter Files’ have opened the company's censorship decisions [thefire.org]
  • So why would causing panic and disinformation be any more legal?

    • When the theater is on fire ... better yell FIRE !! Why cause a panic ? Because true  social  information may  among rational people indeed cause a  political panic;  that upheaval may destroys a  corrupt and unresponsive government. Big benefit small risk, unless you are pimping-the-ride for the corrupt and unresponsive.   
    • Ironically, claiming that yelling fire in a crowded theater is illegal, is in fact dangerous misinformation that undermines our national security and integrity.

      Must feel nice to have you idiotic comment stand and not automatically removed.

    • Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is NOT illegal.

      https://reason.com/2022/10/27/... [reason.com]

  • Lets be clear this was an active effort organized by authorized government authorities to suppress lawful speech. It doesn't really matter whether they "threatened" the platforms or not. The very act of trying to infringe someones freedom of speech is what is prohibited. Its not the platform's freedom that was being infringed, it was the people using the platform. And the government was actively working to prevent their speech from being heard.
    • To provide and analogy, just imagine that the government authorities organized a campaign to get venues to prevent someone from speaking.
      • Moreover, the people harmed are not just those whose speech was suppressed but people who were unable to hear what they had to say. When someone's freedom of speech is infringed we all suffer harm.
  • Sir, I encourage you to stop, or I will shoot you.

  • Their seems to be two sides of the coin going on.

    1)Social media can ignore what the government says (this kind)
    2)Social media has to listen to what the government says (where they can't delete what they don't like )

  • Seems to me each one of the posts saying an administration shouldn't encourage, cajole or ask ends with a yet unrealized forcing and shooting and threatening.
    You folks are terrified. And you're willing to do say these things are the reason you fear (and you do fear) because you see the world through violent eyes and expect to be treated violently, thereby justifying your violent thoughts. You are certainly seeing the world you desire into existence. Forgive, forget anger, and be free. Stop being fearful lik

Children begin by loving their parents. After a time they judge them. Rarely, if ever, do they forgive them. - Oscar Wilde

Working...