News

"Coerce" is I think is what at issue in the case. I still think saying this ruling would give the US government "the power to define misinformation" is misleading. No one, even those arguing it was "coercion," is arguing the government was using any legal powers to enforce their recommendations. The evidence shows in most cases they were being ignored if anything. And the appeals court was relying on some very faulty factual findings at the trial court level, much of which was pointed out in the supreme court hearing today. The previous rulings used many out of context quotes or even just portions of sentences to create something that wasn't there. They also overstepped by insituting a very broad gag order across all government communications that has been very damaging. I'll be surprised if the Supreme Court doesn't rule in favor of the government here, especially based on their comments today, and don't worry, the government still won't have any legal powers to enforce their definitions of misinformation if the Supreme Court rules in their favor.

I think the much greater threat to free speech comes in the form of the other Supreme Court cases heard last month (net choice v Paxton and moody v net choice), that would use the force of law to prevent social media companies from having any editorial discretion in what is posted on their sites. Despite what the Republicans pushing those laws claim, they are not in favor of free speech. The effext of those laws is, to quote the ACLU, "Under the guise of “prohibiting censorship,” these laws seek to replace the private entities’ editorial voice with preferences dictated by the government." That's the one that's not only clearly coercive but comes with the force of law, and I would be very worried from a free speech perspective if the supreme court upheld those laws.

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-urges-supreme-court-to-uphold-preliminary-injunctions-against-laws-that-would-allow-the-government-to-regulate-editorial-discretion-on-social-media