The country’s highest court ruled on Wednesday June 26 that members of the Biden administration are justified in discussing with social media platforms about publications deemed problematic. This is a Supreme Court victory for the Biden administration.
2 mins
This is one of two cases on the agenda of this session of the Court concerning freedom of expression. The other, on which it must rule shortly, concerns the ” censorship » of which conservatives claim to be victims on social networks.
For the plaintiffs, when the Biden administration discusses with social media platforms publications that it considers problematic on public health and in particular vaccines against Covid-19 or on electoral denial, it is simply censorship .
For once, three conservative judges join the three liberals. Speaking for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett asserts that the appeals court “ was wrong » to recognize the plaintiffs as “ interest in acting “. Because none of them, namely the Republican States of Missouri, Louisiana and five private individuals, have “ proven » a significant risk of harm which would be attributable to contacts between federal officials and social networks, she explains.
Read alsoUnited States: social media bosses interviewed in the Senate, a painful moment for Mark Zuckerberg
She criticizes the court of appeal for having “ ignores the complexities of the facts by attributing all decisions to social networks, at least in part ” to state actors, while internet giants ” often exercised their own judgment “. The plaintiffs “ ask us, without any concrete connection between their injuries and the behavior of the defendants, to review years of communications between dozens of federal officials, in different agencies, via different social networks, on different subjects », Lists Judge Barrett.
“ Serious Threat to the First Amendment »
Three judges out of the nine had a divergent opinion. In his opinion of disagreement, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by two of his conservative colleagues, considers on the contrary that a complainant demonstrated her interest in taking action and that the Court should therefore have “ decide on this serious threat to the First Amendment “.
“ For months, top government officials have put relentless pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech “, he laments, warning that “ the success of this coercive campaign makes it an attractive model for future leaders wanting to control what people say, hear and think “.
Read alsoUnited States: a federal judge limits civil servants’ contacts with social networks
The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Jordan, also regretted the Supreme Court’s decision. “ Free speech should be protected from government infringement “, he said in a press release, accusing the Biden administration of having engaged in a “campaign of censorship”.