The Supreme Court addressed the issue of government officials blocking or censoring users on social media platforms in cases like Murthy v. Missouri. Lower courts are urged to consider maximizing constituents' First Amendment rights online. The case examines the line between government communications and informal censorship of platforms and users' expressive rights.
Good piece here on Bidenworld gov’t agencies resuming their old ‘partnerships’ (censorship collaborations) w/ social media platforms, which they briefly paused in fear after the Missouri v Biden trial court ruling. It’s now going to come down to the SCOTUS ruling. https://t.co/Qczyp8mKp3
Can public officials block critics on social media— or is that government censorship? The Supreme Court addressed this question on March 15, largely vindicating the positions FIRE outlined in friend-of-the-court briefs filed last year. Learn more 🔥: https://t.co/T9Np83Bdr0
On #FreeSpeechUnmuted, Eugene(@VolokhC) & Jane discuss Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden), which asks: If the government asks social media platforms to remove certain posts, does that violate the First Amendment? Watch now: https://t.co/2x5tyrunqg
Oral aruments in Murthy v. Missouri examined when government communications with social media companies cross the line into informal censorship of both platforms and users' expressive rights. Here’s what you should know about the case… https://t.co/E4nUoqXQY9 #CatoSCOTUS #Cato1A https://t.co/rNij48iBi4
The Supreme Court charted a path forward in the nearly decades-long question of whether government officials can block, or censor, users. We hope lower courts apply this test with an eye toward maximizing constituents’ First Amendment rights online. https://t.co/QORFuNnYBx