Six justices grappled with the question of whether government officials can encourage social media companies to moderate certain content, especially when it contains dangerous lies about a once-in-a-century pandemic.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Murthy v. Missouri on Monday.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Murthy v. Missouri on Monday, where six justices grappled with the question of whether government officials can encourage social media companies to moderate certain content, especially when it contains dangerous lies about a once-in-a-century pandemic. The opinion handed down by Judge Doughty was a humiliating mess of contradictions, fabrications and misinformation.
The Supreme Court seems deeply wary of finding the Biden administration improperly coordinated with Big Tech companies to censor social media posts.
Across the court's ideological lines, the justices suggested that lower courts had overstepped by restricting communications between government officials and platforms.
Some legal experts argue this could be one of the most significant free speech cases before the high court in years.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the case as if the Biden administration was directly involved in censoring social media posts when in fact they were only advising and encouraging platforms to take down content deemed misinformation. Secondly, it implies that there are no examples of deception by omission when there clearly is. The article fails to disclose important information about the case such as who filed the lawsuit and what specific actions the Biden administration took to pressure social media companies.
The article presents a quote from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asking 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?” This implies that the government is trying to censor content based on its perceived harmfulness, which is not accurate.
The article presents a quote from Justice Sonia Sotomayor telling Aguiñaga: “You omit information that changes the context of some of your claims.” This implies that the government is hiding important information, which is not accurate.
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains several examples of an appeal to authority fallacy. The author cites the opinions and actions of various individuals without providing any evidence or reasoning for their claims. Additionally, there are instances where the author uses inflammatory rhetoric to make a point rather than presenting facts in a neutral manner.
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
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.
Some conservative justices took issue with Fletcher's characterization that the administration was merely encouraging platforms to adjust their policies.
Bias
(85%)
The author appears to be skeptical of the claims made by the plaintiffs in this case. The article mentions that there is a lack of evidence supporting these claims and that some legal experts believe it could be one of the most significant free speech cases before the high court in years.
The justices suggested that lower courts had overstepped by restricting communications between government officials and social media platforms.
The case stems from a lawsuit brought by Republican-led states Missouri and Louisiana that accused high-ranking government officials of working with giant social media companies to censor certain messages.
In nearly two hours of oral arguments, the justices debated whether the Biden administration crossed the constitutional line, and whether its outreach efforts amounted to permissible persuasion or encagement versus illegal coercion or threats of retaliation.
Justice Samuel Alito said that government officials are treating social media companies like their subordinates by pressuring them to take down harmful information.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in that it presents a false narrative about Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's comments. The author misrepresents the justice's statement as saying that she believes the states view would prevent government from explaining its facts or positions to social media companies when there is some danger or imminent threat, which is not true. In fact, Justice Jackson was arguing for a stronger role of government in protecting citizens and encouraging private platforms to take down harmful information.
The author misrepresents Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's statement as saying that she believes the states view would prevent government from explaining its facts or positions to social media companies when there is some danger or imminent threat, which is not true. In fact, Justice Jackson was arguing for a stronger role of government in protecting citizens and encouraging private platforms to take down harmful information.
The author uses sensationalism by stating that the case stems from a lawsuit brought by Republican-led states Missouri and Louisiana that accused high-ranking government officials of working with giant social media companies under the guise of combating misinformation, which ultimately led to censoring speech on topics including Hunter Biden's laptop, COVID-19 origins and the efficacy of face masks. This statement is not accurate as it implies that there was a coordinated effort between government officials and private platforms to censor speech.
Fallacies
(80%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The author raises eyebrows with her comment that the First Amendment is being 'hamstrung' by government efforts to censor certain messages. This statement suggests a bias towards protecting free speech and against government censorship.
]Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson took a different approach. SUPREME COURT TO HEAR ARGUMENTS IN KEY FIRST AMENDMENT CASE CHALLENGING BIDEN ADMIN TEAMWORK WITH BIG TECH[
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey told Fox News Digital in an interview that Justice Jackson was 'absolutely right.'
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Murthy v. Missouri on Monday.
Six justices grasped that government officials can encourage social media companies to moderate certain content, especially when it contains dangerous lies about a once-in-a-century pandemic.
Judge Doughty has a record of issuing nationwide injunctions against the Biden administration based on dubious legal and factual analysis.
The opinion handed down by Judge Doughty was a humiliating mess of contradictions, fabrications, and misinformation.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the case as if it were a typical example of government censorship when in fact the Supreme Court was not ruling on whether or not to censor speech but rather whether or not to allow social media companies to moderate content that they deemed harmful. Secondly, the article falsely claims that Judge Doughty issued a nationwide bar against Biden's vaccine mandate for health care workers when in fact he only issued an injunction prohibiting any employee from engaging in any communication of any kind with social-media companies encouraging content moderation. Finally, the article misrepresents testimony and other evidence to construct a conspiracy theory that has no basis in reality.
The Supreme Court was not ruling on whether or not to censor speech but rather whether or not to allow social media companies to moderate content that they deemed harmful.
The federal judiciary's center right is losing patience with its far right.
A policymaking body within the judiciary announced new steps to combat 'judge shopping', a practice that has allowed Republican litigants to choose to have their cases heard by partisan judges who are well to the right of even the median Trump appointee.
The Supreme Court has also heard several cases in its current term where it appears likely to reverse rulings made by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, a MAGA stronghold that frequently hands down decisions that appear designed to sabotage the Biden administration.
On Monday, the Supreme Court held oral arguments in one of these Fifth Circuit cases, known as Murthy v. Missouri.
The lower court handed down a sweeping injunction forbidding much of the federal government from having any communications at all with social media companies.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the idea that there are signs of a shift among conservative judges towards more moderate positions when in fact this is not clear from the information provided. Secondly, it portrays Brett Kavanaugh as defending the Biden administration's position on free speech which is misleading since he was only arguing for a narrow interpretation of First Amendment rights and did not take any stance on broader issues related to government censorship or surveillance.
The article presents the idea that conservative judges are losing patience with their far right counterparts when in fact this is not clear from the information provided. This statement is misleading since it implies a shift among conservative judges towards more moderate positions which may not be accurate.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article discusses the Supreme Court's decision to hear two cases involving 'jawboning', where the government tried to pressure private companies into taking certain actions. One of these cases is Murthy v. Missouri, which involves a sweeping injunction forbidding much of the federal government from having any communications at all with social media companies. The article discusses how various officials throughout the federal government had many communications with major social media platforms and asked them to remove or alter content. These communications concerned many topics such as criminal activity, terroristic activities, election-related disinformation, false statements about when an election will take place and fake accounts that falsely impersonate a member of the president's family. The article also discusses how these plaintiffs were able to identify several examples where government officials were curt or bossy to representatives from social media companies when those companies refused to pull down content that the government asked them to remove. However, it is unclear what decision even means and at least six of the justices appeared frustrated by the Fifth Circuit's ham-handed approach to this case. The two justices who have worked in senior White House jobs seemed especially dismissive of the Fifth Circuit's position.
The article discusses how various officials throughout the federal government had many communications with major social media platforms and asked them to remove or alter content.
The lawsuit aimed at stopping the Biden administration from urging social media companies to take down purported disinformation about Covid vaccines and election fraud got a chilly reception at the Supreme Court.
A clear majority of justices sounded deeply skeptical about the suit brought by Louisiana and Missouri states, as well as seven individual plaintiffs claiming Biden officials violated First Amendment rights.
Proponents of the case argued that a sustained campaign by the administration amounted to unconstitutional coercion of firms like Facebook, Google (formerly known as Twitter), to remove or suppress posts expressing messages at odds with federal authorities.
Justice Samuel Alito was in a minority on the court who thought officials may have met legal standards for coercion.
At least two other justices suggested that Alito's comments were wrong because government press people often badger journalists and editors about content they find objectionable or wrong.
Chief Justice John Roberts chimed in, saying he had no experience coercing anybody.
Louisiana state Solicitor General Benjamin Agui༚ga tried to pivot away from mainstream press examples by arguing that the speech being suppressed wasn't their own but those of third parties.
Several justices didn't seem to find this distinction meaningful because news outlets often carry op-ed pieces and essays that don't reflect their views.
Agui༚ga also said users were often unaware they were being impacted by the federal effort to prod social media platforms.
Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher defended the administration's actions, saying it didn't engage in coercion and only encouraged enforcement of existing rules barring Covid-19 misinformation.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett expressed concern that the rationale behind the suit could prohibit government officials from reaching out to social media platforms about individuals being doxxed or publishing someone's personal information online with malicious intent.
Barrett also seemed uncomfortable with lower courts' conclusion that Biden administration could be banned not only from coercion but also any action that significantly encouraged platforms to take down protected speech.
Roberts expressed doubts trying to control federal government interactions with the media was feasible or effective, suggesting whole government wasn't arrayed against social media firms.
Kagan warned that if high court upheld injunction, officials at FBI would have to think very hard about whether to keep interacting with sites.
Another early indication of trouble for red states and conservatives came when Barrett said she believed lower courts made errors in the case.
Deception
(75%)
I found three examples of deceptive practices in this article. The first is the author's use of emotional manipulation by implying that the Biden administration's actions are a 'barrage' and 'aggressive campaign'. This language is designed to elicit an emotional response from readers, rather than providing factual information about what actually occurred. The second example is selective reporting, as the author only mentions conservatives being impacted by these actions without acknowledging that others may have been affected as well. Lastly, there are several instances of editorializing and pontification throughout the article where the author expresses their own opinions on the matter rather than presenting objective facts.
The Biden administration's 'aggressive campaign' against social media companies
Conservatives being impacted by these actions without acknowledging others may have been affected as well
Editorializing and pontification throughout the article where the author expresses their own opinions on the matter rather than presenting objective facts.
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains an example of the fallacy 'appeals to authority' when it quotes Justice Samuel Alito as saying that federal officials were crude in their dealings with social media companies. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing the actions taken by government officials as a sustained and aggressive campaign, which could be seen as an attempt to manipulate public opinion.
> Justice Samuel Alito said it was completely unfathomable that officials would be so crude in dealings with the traditional press as they were in emails exchanged with tech firms. <br> > The author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing the actions taken by government officials as a sustained and aggressive campaign, which could be seen as an attempt to manipulate public opinion.
