Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Supreme Court Cannot Ignore the National Security Implications of the So-Called 'Jawboning' Case
https://www.justsecurity.org/93495/the-supreme-court-cannot-ignore-the-national-security-implications-of-the-so-called-jawboning-case/On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear argument about whether to uphold a vaguely worded order from the Fifth Circuit that arguably bars White House officials and several executive branch agencies, including the FBI, from urging social media companies to take down disinformation and misinformation that drives political violence, undermines democratic processes, and makes our nation less secure.
As the Court considers Murthy v Missourijust as it should in considering the NetChoice anti-censorship cases argued last monthit must recognize not only the substantial national security and public safety harms from disinformation and extremist content on social media, but also the necessity for government officials to be able to communicate freely with social media companies about the abuses of their services by malign actors. And that includes the government urging those platforms to take action.
The case before the Court on Monday was brought by five social media users and the states of Missouri and Louisiana, who alleged that the government had engaged in a sprawling campaign to threaten social media companies into removing or suppressing content expressing disfavored viewpoints, particularly related to the COVID pandemic, vaccines, and election fraud.
The district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed, holding that certain federal officials likely had coerced the companies to remove disfavored speech by threatening adverse action if they did not, or had significantly encouraged them to remove such content, either way running afoul of the First Amendment. For example, the Fifth Circuit concluded that the FBIby warning social media companies of hack and dump operations by foreign state-sponsored actors that would spread misinformation about the 2022 midterm elections on their platformshad likely engaged in prohibited coercion not because the bureaus warnings conveyed any actual threat of adverse action from failure to take down the misinformation, but because of the inherent coercion that comes from a request from law enforcement.
*snip*
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 770 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (8)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Supreme Court Cannot Ignore the National Security Implications of the So-Called 'Jawboning' Case (Original Post)
Nevilledog
Mar 18
OP
diva77
(7,671 posts)1. k&r for exposure
Bluethroughu
(5,204 posts)2. Leave it up with a disclaimer of who put it there, with big shaddow lettering through it false.
Nevilledog
(51,237 posts)3. Kick
Under The Radar
(3,406 posts)4. I get the impression that SCOTUS doesn't care
Since Citizens United, Shelby County, Dobbs, Heller, tossing the Colorado 14th Amend. and now the decision to take the absolute immunity case, I really don't think that the public's perception means much to SCOTUS at all. With no change in conduct, apology or any recusals for collecting payments from their sponsors or with their participation in the insurrection, does it not look like SCOTUS is flexing their muscles, proud to prove that they have all of the power in DC now?