The Biden administration had called a lower court injunction “unprecedented” for restricting officials’ ability to raise concerns about problematic social media content on issues like Covid-19.

The Supreme Court on Friday blocked in full a lower court ruling that would have curbed the Biden administration’s ability to communicate with social media companies about contentious content on such issues as Covid-19.

The decision in a short unsigned order puts on hold a Louisiana-based judge’s ruling in July that specific agencies and officials should be barred from meeting with companies to discuss whether certain content should be stifled.

The Supreme Court also agreed to immediately take up the government’s appeal, meaning it will hear arguments and issue a ruling on the merits in its current term, which runs until the end of June.

Three conservative justices noted that they would have denied the application: Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

  • @[email protected]English
    7•1 year ago

    TLDR for why the conservative justices have their opinion: they state they can’t understand why broad undefined rules would inhibit free speech.

    It’s generally understood that if rules are broad and undefined, then speakers will prefer to self censors proactively, thus limiting speech.

    • @FlowVoidEnglish
      1•1 year ago

      I think you have it backwards. They want to stop the administration from pressuring social media to self censor, i.e. prevent the administration from inhibiting free speech.

      • @[email protected]English
        1•1 year ago

        Nope, I’m pretty sure I’m reading their opinion right

        Instead of providing any concrete proof that “harm is imminent,” White v. Florida, 458 U. S. 1301, 1302 (1982) (Powell, J., in chambers), the Government offers a series of hypothetical statements that a covered official might want to make in the future and that, it thinks, might be chilled. Application 36–38. But hypotheticals are just that—speculation that the Government “may suffer irreparable harm at some point in the future,” not concrete proof. White, 458 U. S., at 1302 (emphasis added). And such speculation does not establish irreparable harm. Nken, 556 U. S., at 434; see also Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 414, n. 5 (2013) (rejecting similar speculation as insufficient to establish an Article III standing injury).

        • @FlowVoidEnglish
          1•1 year ago

          The injunction prevented specific government agencies from coercing or otherwise threatening to punish social media companies who didn’t remove posts. That’s neither broad nor undefined.