In a decision that combines constitutional law with the finesse of a group chat gone wrong, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the Biden administration may have taken its cozy relationship with social media platforms a bit too far when politely nudging them to remove what officials deemed COVID-19 misinformation. Politely, in this context, apparently involved a certain amount of persuasive nagging that now raises First Amendment eyebrows.
The case, Murthy v. Missouri, centered on claims that government officials crossed from “concerned citizen” into “digital hall monitor” by pressuring platforms like Facebook and Twitter (now going through an identity crisis as X) to suppress content that was deemed misleading about COVID-19 and vaccines. The plaintiffs, which included two states and several users, argued that the government’s frequent backchannel messages read less like gentle advice and more like an influencer campaign gone rogue, effectively coercing tech companies into censorship.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority in a 6-3 opinion, pointed out that while the government can absolutely have opinions on public health and even share them with the public, it cannot present those opinions while lurking meaningfully behind Mark Zuckerberg’s digital curtains and whispering “This post is doing numbers and we don’t like it.” Alito’s ruling emphasized that the government’s approach was not a friendly heads-up but had the subtlety of a sledgehammer wrapped in terms of service agreements.
In its defense, the White House maintained that it was simply acting in the best interest of public health during an unprecedented emergency, when misinformation flowed online faster than a sourdough recipe during lockdown. Officials said they encouraged platforms to apply their own content policies and were not, in fact, delivering top-down speech crackdowns from the Oval Office with morning coffee.
The ruling does not entirely shut the virtual door on government talks with social media companies. Instead, it makes clear that those talks should feel a bit less like a mobster’s friendly suggestion and a little more like a newsletter from your local health department. Basically, the government can speak freely, but if it wants content removed, it should leave the horse’s head out of Zuckerberg’s bed.
So while federal officials can still offer thoughts and prayers to Silicon Valley about “problematic posts,” they must avoid acting like overzealous moderators on a neighborhood Facebook group who also happen to have federal ID badges.
Sometimes, even Uncle Sam needs to step away from the comment section.