FOR WHOM THE TOK TIKSLawmakers: Ban TikTok to Stop Election Misinformation! Same Lawmakers: Restrict How Government Addresses Election Misinformation!
Forty-five Washington lawmakers have argued before the Supreme Court that government communications with social media sites about possible election interference misinformation are illegal. The lawmakers insisted that government agencies can’t even pass on information about websites that state election officials have identified as disinformation, even if the agencies don’t request that any action be taken. Yet just last week the vast majority of those same lawmakers said the government’s interest in removing election interference misinformation from social media justifies banning a site used by 150 million Americans.
In a case heard Monday, 11 March, at the Supreme Court, 45 Washington lawmakers have argued that government communications with social media sites about possible election interference misinformation are illegal.
Agencies can’t even pass on information about websites that state election officials have identified as disinformation, even if they don’t request that any action be taken, they assert.
Yet just last week the vast majority of those same lawmakers said the government’s interest in removing election interference misinformation from social media justifies banning a site used by 150 million Americans.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, a case that raises the issue of whether the federal government violates the First Amendment by asking social media platforms to remove or negatively moderate user posts or accounts. In Murthy, the government contends that it can strongly urge social media sites to remove posts without violating the First Amendment, as long as it does not coerce them into doing so under the threat of penalty or other official sanction.
We recognize both the hazards of government involvement in content moderation and the proper role in some situations for the government to share its expertise with the platforms. In our brief in Murthy, we urge the court to adopt a view of coercion that includes indirectly coercive communications designed and reasonably perceived as efforts to replace the platform’s editorial decision-making with the government’s.
And we argue that close cases should go against the government. We also urge the court to recognize that the government may and, in some cases, should appropriately inform platforms of problematic user posts. But it’s the government’s responsibility to make sure that its communications with the platforms are reasonably perceived as being merely informative and not coercive.
In contrast, the Members of Congress signed an amicus brief in Murthy supporting placing strict limitations on the government’s interactions with social media companies. They argued that the government may hardly communicate at all with social media platforms when it detects problematic posts.
