Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Supreme Court weighs whether government communications to social platforms can amount to coercion
Summary
At oral argument in Murthy v. Missouri, the court debated whether routine executive‑branch contacts with Facebook, Twitter and other platforms cross the First Amendment line into coercion or state action and whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge a broad injunction.
The Supreme Court heard argument in Murthy v. Missouri over whether executive‑branch communications with social‑media companies can constitutionally coerce those platforms into suppressing third‑party speech.
Mister Fletcher, arguing for the government, told the justices the case turns on the difference between persuasion and coercion: "The government may not use coercive threats to suppress speech, but it is entitled to speak for itself by informing, persuading, or criticizing private speakers." He urged the court to reverse the lower courts, saying the Fifth Circuit expanded state‑action doctrine and misread persuasion as coercion.
Respondent counsel described a voluminous record of behind‑the‑scenes pressure. "Government censorship has no place in our democracy," he…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat