As social media sites were flooded with misleading posts about vaccine safety, mask effectiveness, Covid-19’s origins and federal shutdowns, Biden officials urged platforms to pull down posts, delete accounts, and amplify correct information.

Now the Supreme Court could decide whether the government violated Americans’ First Amendment rights with those actions — and dictate a new era for what role, if any, officials can play in combating misinformation on social media.

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments next month in a case that could have sweeping ramifications for federal health agencies’ communications in particular. Murthy v. Missouri alleges that federal officials coerced social media and search giants like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Google to remove or downgrade posts that questioned vaccine safety, Covid’s origins, or shutdown measures. Biden lawyers argue that officials made requests but never forced companies.

Government defenders say that if the Court limits the government’s power, it could hamstring agencies scrambling to achieve higher vaccination rates and other critical public health initiatives. Critics argue that federal public health officials — already in the throes of national distrust and apathy — never should have tried to remove misleading posts in the first place.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    10 months ago

    Republicans will find that “freedom of speech means freedom to lie,” if that’s what SCOTUS decides, will come back to majorly bite them in the ass. Because they’re far from the only ones capable of lying.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yep, until they find it can be used against them even more effectively than they can use them against others. Then they will be the first to scream about how unfair it all is.

    • athos77@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      While that’s true, they’re also the only ones with an entire nationwide media ecosystem - broadcast tv (Sinclair), cable (Fox, OAN, Newsmax), radio (conservative talk radio), newspapers, etc - that’s entirely willing to back up whatever the conservative narrative of the day is. I mean, we laugh at them for having such a distorted view of reality, but they’re very media-captured.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s always helpful to find a way to smear your opponent. And if it’s legal for you to make an AI video of your opponent, say, smoking meth… why not? It’s legal.

        • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Except Republican voters wouldn’t care if “their guy” was doing meth…or raping people or killing people or lying or stealing or anything else. Dems are disowning folks like Al Franken for an old photo of a pervy joke and the presumptive nominee for Republicans is a twice-impeached, 91-times indicted huckster with a history of infidelity and screwing over the working class and some pretty damning evidence of actual pedophilia and at least fantasizing about incest. And uh…oh yeah, insurrection.

          When you try to smear shit, the shit doesn’t get dirty… you do.