- Iran mourns president Raisi's death in helicopter crash
- Attack on tourists rocks fledgling Afghanistan tourism sector
- Paralympics should put disability back on global agenda, says IPC chief
- South Africa's top court strikes Zuma from ballot
- Crunch time looms for BHP's bid buy Anglo American
- Kane to face old club Spurs for first time in Seoul
- Markets rise as traders cheered by China property plan
- Black farmers in Brazil changing views on coffee production
- Iran's President Raisi declared dead in helicopter crash
- Australia police arrest 554 in domestic violence crackdown
- South Korea, Britain host AI summit with safety top of agenda
- New president Lai vows to defend Taiwan's democracy
- Forever fad: Rubik says his cube 'reminds us why we have hands'
- Trump eyes witness stand as trial draws to a close
- Ryanair annual profit jumps on higher demand, fares
- High-priced Cummins, Starc face off as IPL enters playoffs
- Iran media says President Raisi died in helicopter crash
- Dominican Republic President Abinader re-elected to 2nd term
- New Taiwan president Lai hails 'glorious' democracy
- New Caledonia separatists defy French efforts to unblock roads
- Timberwolves knock out defending champion Nuggets, Pacers oust Knicks
- Trump biopic hits Cannes Film Festival
- Iran President Raisi's helicopter found, 'no sign of life'
- Three talking points ahead of 2024 French Open
- 'Haikyu!!': Comic heroes fuel Japan Olympic volleyball manga mania
- Timberwolves rally to knock defending champion Nuggets out of NBA playoffs
- London court set to rule on Julian Assange extradition
- Business and Bollywood votes in India election
- Pope calls anti-migrant attitudes at US border 'madness'
- Mexico aims to be big economic winner from US-China tensions
- Uncertain future for thousands after deadly Brazil floods
- Schauffele makes the putt of his life for first major win
- Wirtz returns to help unbeaten Leverkusen chase history
- Search for Iran's President Raisi after helicopter goes missing
- DeChambeau's powerful putting has him excited for US Open
- Taiwan to swear in new president as China pressure grows
- Atalanta can end 61-year wait for trophy in Europa League final
- Schauffele birdies final hole to capture PGA for first major win
- Guardiola casts doubt over long-term Man City future
- Hollywood icons Costner and Demi Moore make Cannes comeback
- Pacers shoot down Knicks to reach NBA Eastern Conference finals
- Schauffele birdies final hole, captures first major at PGA Championship
- McLaughlin powers to Indy 500 pole in all-Penske front row
- Monaco footballer tapes over LGBTQ badge
- Korda wins sixth LPGA title of year with win at Liberty National
- Pacers put on shooting show to down Knicks, reach NBA Eastern Conference finals
- US envoy touts 'potential' of Israel-Saudi deal in Netanyahu talks
- Dominicans vote for president in poll overshadowed by Haiti crisis
- Brest secure Champions League qualification, PSG win without Mbappe
- Mbappe absent as PSG win final Ligue 1 game
US Supreme Court skeptical of curbing govt contact with social media firms
A majority of justices on the US Supreme Court appeared skeptical on Monday of efforts to impose restrictions on federal government efforts to curb misinformation online.
Both conservative and liberal justices on the nine-member court appeared reluctant to endorse a lower court's ruling that would severely limit government interactions with social media companies.
The case stems from a lawsuit brought by the Republican attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri, who allege that government officials went too far in their bid to get platforms to combat vaccine and election misinformation, violating the First Amendment free speech rights of users.
The lower court restricted top officials and agencies of Democratic President Joe Biden's administration from meeting and communicating with social media companies to moderate their content.
The ruling, which the Supreme Court put on hold until it heard the case, was a win for conservative advocates who allege that the government pressured or colluded with platforms such as Facebook and X, formerly Twitter, to censor right-leaning content under the guise of fighting misinformation.
Representing the Justice Department in the Supreme Court on Monday, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher said there is a "fundamental distinction 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 said.
The lower court, Fletcher said, "mistook persuasion for coercion."
Justice Samuel Alito, a conservative, said the record showed that government officials had engaged in "constant pestering of Facebook and some of the other platforms" treating them "like their subordinates."
"I cannot imagine federal officials taking that approach to the print media," Alito said.
But Chief Justice John Roberts, also a conservative, said the federal government does not speak with one voice.
"The government is not monolithic," Roberts said. "That has to dilute the concept of coercion significantly, doesn't it?"
Fletcher said interactions between health officials and social media platforms at the heart of the case needed to be viewed in light of "an effort to get Americans vaccinated during a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic."
"There was a concern that Americans were getting their news about the vaccine from these platforms and the platforms were promoting bad information," Fletcher said, adding that "the platforms were moderating content long before the government was talking to them."
- 'No place in our democracy' -
J. Benjamin Aguinaga, the solicitor general of Louisiana, denounced what he called "government censorship," saying it has "no place in our democracy."
"The government has no right to persuade platforms to violate Americans' constitutional rights, and pressuring platforms in backrooms shielded from public view is not using the bully pulpit at all," Aguinaga said. "That's just being a bully."
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal, pushed back, saying "my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways."
"Some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country." she said.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative, asked whether it would be coercion if someone in government calls up a social media company to point out something that is "factually erroneous information."
The lower court order applied to the White House and a slew of agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State Department, the Justice Department as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The decision restricted agencies and officials from meeting with social media companies or flagging posts.
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry hailed the "historic injunction" at the time, saying it would prevent the Biden administration from "censoring the core political speech of ordinary Americans" on social media.
He accused federal officials of seeking to "dictate what Americans can and cannot say on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other platforms about COVID-19, elections, criticism of the government, and more."
Some experts in misinformation and First Amendment law criticized the lower court ruling, saying the authorities needed to strike a balance between calling out falsehoods and veering towards censorship or curbing free speech.
H.Seidel--BTB