BBC News:
The Supreme Court has heard arguments in a case that will define how far the US government can go in attempting to tackle disinformation online.
Louisiana and Missouri brought the case, arguing that the government’s contact with social media platforms should be limited.
But the court’s nine justices appeared unconvinced during arguments on Monday.
The case is seen as a test of how much the government can pressure social media companies to remove content.
It began after President Joe Biden’s administration pushed platforms to remove posts about the Covid pandemic and the 2020 election which it said were false.
Louisiana and Missouri were joined in the lawsuit by several plaintiffs who said their free speech rights had been violated and the Biden administration had sought to stifle conservative views.
They include Jim Hoft, the owner of Gateway Pundit, a right-wing website that has been accused of publishing misinformation, and Jill Hines, co-director of Health Freedom Louisiana, a group that argues against vaccines and laws which mandate them.
On Monday, some justices expressed a reluctance to support a lower court’s ruling that would severely limit government interactions with social media companies. That ruling is on pause while the Supreme Court considers the case.
Several justices said they were concerned ordinary interactions between officials and the major platforms could be impacted.
“Some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson told Benjamin Aguinaga, the Louisiana solicitor general.
