The Supreme Court of the United States convened on March 18, 2024, to hear arguments in the case of Murthy, Surgeon General v. Missouri, focusing on the government's role in regulating speech on social media platforms. Central to the discussions was the contention that the government may not pressure private entities to suppress speech that is constitutionally protected.

During the proceedings, one attorney argued that while the government has the right to persuade, it cannot compel platforms to violate Americans' constitutional rights. This argument emphasized that pressuring platforms in private settings is not a legitimate use of the government's influence but rather an act of coercion. The attorney referenced past cases, including Bantam Books, to illustrate that the government cannot indirectly achieve what it is prohibited from doing directly.

The court explored whether the government's actions constituted coercion or merely encouragement. The attorney maintained that the government's attempts to induce platforms to censor certain viewpoints, particularly regarding vaccine hesitancy and election integrity, amounted to unconstitutional suppression of speech. The discussion highlighted the complexities of distinguishing between legitimate government interests and potential overreach into free speech rights.

Justices raised questions about the nuances of government influence, noting that different agencies might exert conflicting pressures on platforms. The attorney argued that regardless of the label—coercion, encouragement, or promotion—if the government seeks to abridge speech rights, it violates the First Amendment.

The case underscores significant implications for the intersection of government authority and free speech in the digital age, particularly as social media continues to play a pivotal role in public discourse. The court's decision will likely set a precedent regarding the limits of government influence over private platforms and the protection of individual speech rights.