If government agencies notify Meta or X about posts they believe violate their policies, it’s not a First Amendment violation as long as the feds don’t demand the content’s removal.
The feds can notify social media platforms about posts they believe violate the sites’ policies and suggest they be removed, but you can’t bring a First Amendment case unless there’s actual «do this or else» coercion by the government, the Supreme Court ruled today.
The opinion (PDF) released Wednesday overturns a September 2023 ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that said executive-branch officials hectoring social platforms about content moderation violated the First Amendment.
That ruling modified a July 4, 2023, ruling from Judge Terry A. Doughty that imposed a gag order on dozens of federal officials across four cabinet departments and agencies such as the FBI, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
Writing for a 6-3 majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove government coercion when they sought a ban on federal officials asking or demanding particular content moderation practices.
«To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a Government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek», she wrote. «Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.»
The plaintiffs—originally the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, later joined by Gateway Pundit publisher Jim Hoft; doctors Jayanta Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff, and Aaron Kheriarty; and pandemic-restrictions opponent Jill Hines—had argued that federal officials under both the Trump and Biden administrations pressuring social platforms to demonetize or delete posts rose to the level of government censorship.
