Plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri lacked standing due to no concrete injury from government communications with social media companies
Supreme Court rules on Biden administration's social media censorship cases
Three separate cases addressed issue of standing and injury for plaintiffs
The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a series of rulings on June 26, 2024, regarding the Biden administration's efforts to combat misinformation on social media platforms and its communications with these companies. In three separate cases, the court addressed the issue of standing and whether plaintiffs had sufficient injury to bring their challenges.
In one case, Murthy v. Missouri, state attorneys general from Missouri and Louisiana sued various federal agencies and officials for allegedly coordinating with social media companies to censor speech on topics including COVID-19 origins, Hunter Biden's laptop, and the efficacy of face masks. The plaintiffs argued that this coordination amounted to unconstitutional censorship.
However, in a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their challenge. The majority opinion held that there was no concrete injury suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of the government's communications with social media companies.
In another case, Alito v. Biden, Justice Samuel Alito dissented from his colleagues in the majority and accused the Biden administration of leading a
The Supreme Court allowed the White House and federal agencies such as the FBI to continue urging social media platforms to take down content viewed as misinformation by the government.
The Department of Homeland Security may continue to flag posts for social media companies like Facebook and X that it believes may be the work of foreign agents seeking to disrupt this year’s presidential race.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson were in the 6-3 majority.
Google and Meta declined to comment on the decision.
Accuracy
]The Supreme Court allowed the White House and federal agencies such as the FBI to continue urging social media platforms to take down content viewed as misinformation by the government.[
The court ruled that the state and social media users who challenged the Biden administration did not have standing to sue.
Deception
(30%)
The article reports on the Supreme Court's decision allowing the White House to continue urging social media platforms to remove content labeled as misinformation. The authors quote Justice Amy Coney Barrett's opinion stating that no plaintiff has carried the burden of demonstrating a substantial risk of injury traceable to a government defendant and redressable by an injunction. However, the article also mentions Republican officials and five social media users who sued over what they perceived as an informal, backdoor campaign of coercion by the Biden administration to silence voices it disagreed with. The authors do not explicitly state their opinion on this matter but present it as a fact. This can be considered selective reporting, as the article focuses on the plaintiffs' claims without providing equal weight to the government's perspective or acknowledging that these allegations have been disputed by internal communications related to Twitter's handling of Hunter Biden's laptop story. Additionally, there is no disclosure of sources in the article.
The plaintiffs pointed to the decision by social media companies to suppress coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop as evidence of unconstitutional government influence.
Fallacies
(85%)
The authors make an appeal to authority by quoting the Supreme Court's decision and stating that it is an 'important election-year victory' for the Biden administration. They also use inflammatory rhetoric when they describe the government's actions as a 'campaign of coercion,' 'blatantly unconstitutional,' and 'dangerous.' However, no formal fallacies were found in this article.
]The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the White House and federal agencies such as the FBI may continue to urge social media platforms to take down content the government views as misinformation[.
Of immediate significance, the decision means that the Department of Homeland Security may continue to flag posts to social media companies such as Facebook and X that it believes may be the work of foreign agents seeking to disrupt this year’s presidential race[.
The Court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think[.
It was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so[.
The Supreme Court ruled that federal courts lack jurisdiction over a case where plaintiffs sued the federal government for social media platforms’ decision to remove or demote some of the plaintiffs’ content.
The Fifth Circuit issued a vague and sweeping injunction forbidding the Biden administration from having ‘consistent and consequential’ communications with social media companies, making it virtually impossible for any communication to take place.
The Fifth Circuit was criticized for misrepresenting facts and relying on clearly erroneous factual findings in its decision.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(95%)
The article by Ian Millhiser contains editorializing and selective reporting. The author expresses his opinion that the Fifth Circuit's decision in Murthy v. Missouri is 'embarrassing' and 'vague and sweeping.' He also states that the plaintiffs in this case have 'dubious First Amendment arguments.' These statements are editorializing as they reflect the author's opinion rather than facts. Additionally, the author selectively reports information by focusing on the fact that some communications between the government and social media platforms urged platforms to remove content, while omitting any mention of the content in question or its potential harm. This selective reporting could mislead readers into believing that the government was attempting to censor free speech without providing sufficient context.
The plaintiffs in Murthy are two red states plus an array of individuals who had content removed or suppressed by at least one of the social media platforms. They claimed that platforms censored them because of pressure from the government, and that this pressure violates the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court handed down a stern rebuke to some of the most right-wing judges in the country on Wednesday, holding that no, judges do not get to micromanage how the Biden administration speaks to social media companies.
But even if the links were stronger, Hines can’t show that she will face future injury because of the government’s actions.
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(95%)
The author expresses a clear political bias against the far-right US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and its decision in Murthy v. Missouri. He uses derogatory language to describe the court as 'rogue' and 'unreasonable'. The author also expresses agreement with the Supreme Court's rebuke of the Fifth Circuit's decision, indicating a political alignment with the Democratic appointees on the Supreme Court.
The Fifth Circuit is a rogue court
The Fifth Circuit relied on the District Court’s factual findings, many of which unfortunately appear to be clearly erroneous.
This court took a bunch of vague allegations, involving decisions by private companies that had only a tenuous connection to anything done by a government official, and used those vague allegations to try to shut down the Biden administration’s ability to communicate with those companies.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Biden administration in a challenge to its alleged coordination with social media companies.
The case, Murthy v. Missouri, stems from a lawsuit brought by state attorneys general from Missouri and Louisiana accusing high-ranking government officials of working with giant social media companies under the guise of combating misinformation ultimately led to censoring speech on topics including Hunter Biden’s laptop, COVID-19 origins, and the efficacy of face masks.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, said the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their challenge.
The vote was 6-3, with Justice Samuel Alito dissenting, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
Accuracy
The case, Murthy v. Missouri, stems from a lawsuit brought by state attorneys general from Missouri and Louisiana accusing high-ranking government officials of working with giant social media companies under the guise of combating misinformation.
Deception
(50%)
The article does not provide clear examples of deception by the author. However, there are instances of selective reporting and emotional manipulation. The author quotes Justice Alito's dissenting opinion extensively but fails to mention that the majority opinion was written by Justice Barrett or that there were other justices who agreed with her. This is an example of selective reporting as it only presents one perspective without providing context or balance. Additionally, phrases such as 'one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years' and 'blatantly ignored the First Amendment's right to free speech' are emotionally manipulative language that attempts to elicit a strong emotional response from readers.
What the officials did in this case was more subtle than the ham-handed censorship found to be unconstitutional in Vullo, but it was no less coercive.
for months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech.
And consequently, we are obligated to tackle the free speech issue that the case presents.
Justice Samuel Alito accused the Biden administration of leading a 'campaign to coerce Facebook'
Alito wrote that 'valuable speech was also suppressed by social media platforms in response to White House pressure'
This is one of the most important free speech cases to reach the Supreme Court in years, according to Alito.
Accuracy
The Biden administration contended it was merely encouraging the platforms to moderate content, but Alito rejected this view, insisting White House officials ‘browbeat Facebook into deleting posts’.
The Supreme Court ruled that federal courts lack jurisdiction over a case where plaintiffs sued the federal government for social media platforms’ decision to remove or demote some of the plaintiffs’ content.
