XPost: alt.freespeech, alt.politics.usa.constitution, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, sac.politics   
   From: yourdime@outlook.com   
      
   The Supreme Court seemed deeply wary Monday of finding the Biden   
   administration improperly coordinated with Big Tech companies to censor   
   social media posts deemed “misinformation” about topics including the   
   COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020 presidential election.   
      
   The White House had challenged lower court rulings barring multiple White   
   House officials from corresponding with companies like Google, Facebook   
   and X about content moderation, decisions the Supreme Court had put on   
   hold while it considers the matter.   
      
   The case derives from a lawsuit filed by the Republican state attorneys   
   general of Missouri and Louisiana accusing the Biden administration of   
   leaning on Big Tech to remove postings that didn’t jibe with the   
   government narrative of the pandemic and other controversial topics.   
      
   Across the court’s ideological lines, the justices suggested that the   
   lower courts had overstepped by restricting communications between   
   government officials and the platforms.   
      
   At one point, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked Louisiana   
   Solicitor General J. Benjamin Aguiñaga: “Suppose someone started posting   
   about a new teen challenge that involves teens jumping out of windows at   
   increasing elevations?”   
      
   “Is it your view,” the justice went on, “that the government authorities   
   could not declare those circumstances a public emergency and encourage   
   social media platforms to take down the information?”   
      
   Aguiñaga argued that the government can use its bully pulpit to push back   
   against a budding public health epidemic and can even call up social media   
   companies to convey those concerns to them, but drew a line at pressuring   
   them.   
      
   “The moment that the government tries to use its ability … and its stature   
   as the government to pressure them to take it down, that is when you’re   
   interfering with third-party speech rights,” he argued.   
      
   Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed Aguiñaga about whether the   
   government could call up social media companies and pressure them to take   
   down material that doxxed individuals, but stopped “short of actually   
   being illegal.”   
      
   “Do you know how often the FBI makes those kinds of calls?” Barrett   
   exclaimed after Aguiñaga suggested the government should not make such a   
   notification.   
      
   Another liberal justice, Sonia Sotomayor, told Aguiñaga that “I have such   
   a problem with your brief.”   
      
   “You omit information that changes the context of some of your claims,”   
   the Bronx-born jurist scolded, later adding: “I don’t know what to make of   
   all this.”   
      
   Aguiñaga apologized “if any aspect of our brief was not as forthcoming as   
   it should have been.”   
      
   One of Aguiñaga’s few reprieves came from conservative Justice Samuel   
   Alito, who suggested the questions from his colleagues “have gotten off   
   into questions that I didn’t take it from your brief [that] you think we   
   actually need to decide in this case.”   
      
   In his opening statement, the Pelican State’s top lawyer argued that   
   “behind closed doors, the government badgers the platforms 24/7.   
      
   “It abuses them with profanity,” he added. “It ominously says that the   
   White House is considering its options … all to get the platforms to   
   censor more speech.”   
      
   “Under this onslaught,” Aguiñaga went on, “the platforms routinely cave.”   
      
   Some of the justices drew parallels between the tech companies’ experience   
   with the government and their own relationship with the media.   
      
   “My experience is the United States, in all its manifestations, has   
   regular communications with the media to talk about things they don’t like   
   or don’t want to see or complaining about factual inaccuracies,” Justice   
   Brett Kavanaugh said at one point, hearkening back to his days as White   
   House staff secretary in the George W. Bush administration.   
      
   Liberal Justice Elena Kagan told Aguiñaga his argument was “extremely   
   expansive.”   
      
   “Like Justice Kavanaugh, I’ve had some experience encouraging [the] press   
   to suppress their own speech,” she added.   
      
   US Principal Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher, representing the   
   Biden administration, contended that the government was not instructing   
   social media platforms to remove content, but merely giving advice while   
   the firms were acting on their own volition.   
      
   “We’re not disputing that when the private platforms moderated the   
   plaintiffs’ pages or their posts, that’s an injury in some sense,”   
   Fletcher said. “We have disputed the traceability question and then the   
   redressability question.”   
      
   Alito responded that lower courts had “found that the injury was traceable   
   to the government’s actions.”   
      
   “We don’t usually reverse findings of fact that have been endorsed by two   
   lower courts,” he added.   
      
   Fletcher also contended that the injunction was “extremely vague” and   
   could hamper administration officials — though not President Biden — from   
   discussing concerns such as “the circulation of antisemitic or   
   Islamophobic content on social media platforms.”   
      
   Some conservative justices took issue with Fletcher’s characterization   
   that the administration was merely encouraging platforms to adjust their   
   policies.   
      
   Justice Neil Gorsuch alluded to Biden’s public remarks from the summer of   
   2021 that Facebook was “killing people” by not being more aggressive at   
   taking down posts skeptical of coronavirus vaccines.   
      
   “Could that be coercion, in some circumstances? That if you don’t change   
   your operation policies, you’re responsible for killing people?” Gorsuch   
   asked.   
      
   Fletcher noted that Biden had walked back that statement.   
      
   The justices are expected to rule on the case, Murthy v. Missouri, by the   
   end of June.   
      
   https://nypost.com/2024/03/18/us-news/supreme-court-justices-appear-   
   skeptical-of-censorship-claim-against-biden-white-house/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)