(Washington) The American Supreme Court with a conservative majority refused on Wednesday to prevent the executive branch from intervening with social networks to obtain the removal of content that it considers problematic, particularly in health matters.
This is one of the two files on the agenda of this session of the Court regarding freedom of expression. The other, on which it must rule shortly, concerns the “censorship” of which conservatives claim to be victims on social networks, which have become “the agora of modern times”.
By a majority of six votes, those of the three progressives and three of the six conservatives, including the president of the Court, John Roberts, the judges consider that the plaintiffs, including the attorneys general of two Republican states, Louisiana (south) and Missouri (center), do not have an “interest in taking action”, a condition for taking legal action.
The appeal decision, already suspended by the Supreme Court, is therefore annulled.
An ultraconservative appeals court had limited contacts between the White House as well as federal agencies, including health authorities and the FBI, and internet giants, in the name of the First Amendment of the Constitution which guarantees the freedom of ‘expression.
The ruling, largely upholding a lower court injunction, ordered them to refrain from “pressure” or “significantly encouraging” the companies to remove content that Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration has accused of spreading misinformation about COVID-19 vaccinations or the election results.
Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said the appeals court “erred” in granting the plaintiffs standing because none of them — Missouri, Louisiana and five private individuals — had “proved” a significant risk of harm attributable to federal officials’ contacts with social media, she said.
The plaintiffs “ask us, without any concrete connection between their harm and the defendants’ behavior, to review years of communications between dozens of federal officials, in different agencies, via different social networks, on different topics”, enumerates Judge Barrett.
In his opinion of dissent, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by two of his conservative colleagues, considers on the contrary that a plaintiff has demonstrated her interest in taking action and that the Court should therefore have “ruled on this serious threat to the Prime amendment”.
“For months, senior government officials have exerted relentless pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ freedom of speech,” he laments, warning that “the success of this campaign of coercion makes it an attractive model for future officials wanting to control what people say, hear and think.”
The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Jordan, also regretted the Supreme Court’s decision. “Free speech should be protected from government infringement,” he said in a statement, accusing the Biden administration of engaging in a “campaign of censorship.”
On the other hand, the NGO Accountable Tech, which advocates better regulation of social networks, welcomed in a press release the rejection of an “unfounded” complaint.
It was an attempt to “undermine the government’s ability to defend the United States against campaigns of election interference and disinformation, particularly in a crucial election year,” according to the association.
During the arguments in March, most of the judges, except the most conservative, were inclined to reject the plaintiffs’ request.
Many, regardless of their orientation, were rather alarmed by the consequences of a decision which would prohibit the government from requesting the removal of publications dangerous to minors or to national security.