The Supreme Court has recently made a decision that revolves around social media, government intervention, and free speech.

The Supreme Court has dismissed claims asserting the Biden administration unlawfully influenced social media companies to remove particular content. The court, in essence, concluded that the plaintiffs didn’t provide a valid argument, being unable to demonstrate that the content moderation was a direct outcome of government actions.

🧵We have just witnessed a dagger in the heart of the First Amendment’s right to free speech. The guarantee of our right to criticize government is lost. https://t.co/I3STABwbUZ

— Dan Schneider (@Schneider_DC) June 26, 2024

The plaintiffs comprised Republican attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, along with five social media users, who contended their content was moderated due to government interference. However, the court, in a 6-3 vote, ruled that they hadn’t demonstrated they’d been significantly impacted by specific government officials.

Trump nominated Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, highlighted that social media platforms were moderating content even before the government allegedly got involved. She mentioned that even if government officials influenced some moderation decisions, that wasn’t sufficient to justify strict limits on communications between government officials and social media companies.

After Barrett’s disasterous opinion, the only way Americans can ensure that the Feds will not censor, silence and erase them is to elect a president commited to safeguarding their rights. Nov 5 can’t come soon enough https://t.co/FIqplbpOUB

— Dan Schneider (@Schneider_DC) June 26, 2024

This ruling did spark some disagreement within the court. Justice Samuel Alito strongly disagreed, stating that this case was a critical free speech issue. He was supported by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. They expressed concern that the majority’s decision could establish a perilous precedent for future officials desiring to regulate public discourse.

Those impacted by the ruling have voiced their concerns. Jenin Younes, an attorney for the individual plaintiffs, suggested this ruling essentially paves the way for an unprecedented censorship regime.

This case revolves around the practice of “jawboning,” wherein the government persuades or pressures private entities to comply with its wishes. Often, there’s an implicit threat of adverse outcomes if their demands aren’t met. There are two sides to the argument: one states that this infringes upon the First Amendment, protecting free speech rights, and the other side contends it is a valid strategy to combat misinformation.