The Supreme Court has been hearing cases about government regulation of social media platforms. The questions raised are thorny, especially on how government might weigh in on information on the running of elections. For example, should federal agencies pressure social media companies to take down what they see as misleading content about elections. among the several cases before the Supreme Court recently, is the Murthy V. Missouri case, where it is alleged that government agencies use their power to pressure social media companies to take down or limit posts and users that spread misinformation about vaccines, elections, and other matters. First, there is the question about the power of federal government and how it’s used. There is a whole range of activities that the government might engage in from strongly demanding that social media companies take down posts, too strongly encouraging to merely pointing out errors made posts about important public governmental functions or interests. Second, there are activities of government that seem unobjectionable. On the one hand, government might point out illegal activities on platforms such as terrorist recruitment, human trafficking, or explicit violent threats to discourage voting. At the other end of the spectrum, politicians election offices and other government actors often speak to reporters, ask them to correct the record in their reporting. It’s hard to see how these activities would pose legal, constitutional or even policy problems. Third, there is, however, worry that a regular program of government agency partnership with social media platforms strays into the area of government censorship. If the FBI has regular meetings with social media platforms, identifying content that it disagrees with, and follows up to ensure that certain users or posts are removed, it seems more like direct government action. Fourth, government pressure on election related materials is more problematic at the federal level, as states run their elections in very different ways. If a secretary of state or local election official were to push for accurate information about running elections, it would more likely be tailored to the running of elections in that state. It would be clear about election deadlines and voting procedures in that particular state. If, however, a federal government agency is promoting a broad message such as mail voting is safe, or photo identification requirements are safe. That message coming from the federal government might cut against the messages that individual states want to send to promote about their elections. And the broader the message that has promoted the more ham handed it seems coming from a federal agency. Fifth, there are many institutions of government that deal with elections at the federal, state and local level. At the federal level, none of these agencies directly run elections. But the Election Assistance Commission, Federal Election Commission, and agencies in the Department of Justice, defense and homeland security, all have some role relating to elections. But not all of these institutions have a mission defined by law to promote or disseminate information or combat misinformation. The Election Assistance Commission does, for example, have the role of acting as a clearinghouse of information about state voting practices, which includes conducting a survey of election officials. The agency’s role is authorized by law, and the agency has a clear sense of the lane it should be in. Other agencies, especially those with enforcement powers, do not always have information promotion missions defined by law. Clearly, some forms of government communication with social media and other media platforms will be permitted by courts. But agencies that stick to rules more clearly defined by law will be on stronger ground. We have only started to wrestle with these difficult questions of government interaction with and regulation of social media platforms. The recent court cases will not resolve all of these issues. But a good guide for improving election information would likely stress the importance of information from state and local election officials about a law Christians in their own state, a clarity of mission, preferably in law for federal agencies, and some skepticism of integrated government partnerships with social media platforms that lead to limiting legal debate about election policy.
Related
John Fortier
Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
View Video LibraryCommentary
Our commentary partners will help you reach your own conclusions on complex topics.
Japan must confront reality of military threats
13 hrs ago
Peter Zeihan
US may need to find new sources of uranium
Yesterday
Peter Zeihan
China’s Fujian aircraft carrier is nothing to worry about
Monday
Peter Zeihan
Russia unveils drone-resistant ‘turtle tanks’
Friday
Peter Zeihan
SCOTUS case on threat of disinformation raises thorny questions
Mar 28
By Straight Arrow News
The Supreme Court recently heard arguments concerning government communications with social media platforms in Murthy v. Missouri. Plantiffs in the case claim that government agencies pressured social media companies to remove or restrict posts spreading disinformation about vaccines, elections and COVID-19.
Straight Arrow News contributor John Fortier delves into the complex questions raised by the Murthy case. He concludes that while the case won’t resolve all the issues at hand, clarifying the boundaries of communication between the federal government and influential technology platforms is an important undertaking.
First, there is the question about the power of federal government and how it’s used. There is a whole range of activities that the government might engage in, from strongly demanding that social media companies take down posts, to strongly encouraging, to merely pointing out errors made in posts about important public governmental functions or interests.
Second, there are activities of government that seem unobjectionable. On the one hand, government might point out illegal activities on platforms such as terrorist recruitment, human trafficking, or explicit violent threats to discourage voting. At the other end of the spectrum, politicians, election offices, and other government actors often speak to reporters, ask them to correct the record in their reporting. It’s hard to see how these activities would pose legal, constitutional or even policy problems.
Third, there is, however, worry that a regular program of government agency partnership with social media platforms strays into the area of government censorship. If the FBI has regular meetings with social media platforms, identifying content that it disagrees with, and follows up to ensure that certain users or posts are removed, it seems more like direct government action.
The Supreme Court has been hearing cases about government regulation of social media platforms. The questions raised are thorny, especially on how government might weigh in on information on the running of elections. For example, should federal agencies pressure social media companies to take down what they see as misleading content about elections. among the several cases before the Supreme Court recently, is the Murthy V. Missouri case, where it is alleged that government agencies use their power to pressure social media companies to take down or limit posts and users that spread misinformation about vaccines, elections, and other matters. First, there is the question about the power of federal government and how it’s used. There is a whole range of activities that the government might engage in from strongly demanding that social media companies take down posts, too strongly encouraging to merely pointing out errors made posts about important public governmental functions or interests. Second, there are activities of government that seem unobjectionable. On the one hand, government might point out illegal activities on platforms such as terrorist recruitment, human trafficking, or explicit violent threats to discourage voting. At the other end of the spectrum, politicians election offices and other government actors often speak to reporters, ask them to correct the record in their reporting. It’s hard to see how these activities would pose legal, constitutional or even policy problems. Third, there is, however, worry that a regular program of government agency partnership with social media platforms strays into the area of government censorship. If the FBI has regular meetings with social media platforms, identifying content that it disagrees with, and follows up to ensure that certain users or posts are removed, it seems more like direct government action. Fourth, government pressure on election related materials is more problematic at the federal level, as states run their elections in very different ways. If a secretary of state or local election official were to push for accurate information about running elections, it would more likely be tailored to the running of elections in that state. It would be clear about election deadlines and voting procedures in that particular state. If, however, a federal government agency is promoting a broad message such as mail voting is safe, or photo identification requirements are safe. That message coming from the federal government might cut against the messages that individual states want to send to promote about their elections. And the broader the message that has promoted the more ham handed it seems coming from a federal agency. Fifth, there are many institutions of government that deal with elections at the federal, state and local level. At the federal level, none of these agencies directly run elections. But the Election Assistance Commission, Federal Election Commission, and agencies in the Department of Justice, defense and homeland security, all have some role relating to elections. But not all of these institutions have a mission defined by law to promote or disseminate information or combat misinformation. The Election Assistance Commission does, for example, have the role of acting as a clearinghouse of information about state voting practices, which includes conducting a survey of election officials. The agency’s role is authorized by law, and the agency has a clear sense of the lane it should be in. Other agencies, especially those with enforcement powers, do not always have information promotion missions defined by law. Clearly, some forms of government communication with social media and other media platforms will be permitted by courts. But agencies that stick to rules more clearly defined by law will be on stronger ground. We have only started to wrestle with these difficult questions of government interaction with and regulation of social media platforms. The recent court cases will not resolve all of these issues. But a good guide for improving election information would likely stress the importance of information from state and local election officials about a law Christians in their own state, a clarity of mission, preferably in law for federal agencies, and some skepticism of integrated government partnerships with social media platforms that lead to limiting legal debate about election policy.
Related
US elections have become much more secure since 2000
Donald Trump and his allies successfully convinced many Americans that U.S. voting systems are flawed and unreliable in order to justify his attempts to remain in power after losing to Joe Biden in the 2020 election. Today, much of that skepticism still endures. Americans now confront the problem of how to restore public trust in…
Thursday
SCOTUS case on threat of disinformation raises thorny questions
The Supreme Court recently heard arguments concerning government communications with social media platforms in Murthy v. Missouri. Plantiffs in the case claim that government agencies pressured social media companies to remove or restrict posts spreading disinformation about vaccines, elections and COVID-19. Straight Arrow News contributor John Fortier delves into the complex questions raised by the…
Mar 28
Trump v. Anderson is more complicated than it looks
The Supreme Court case Trump v. Anderson will decide whether former President Donald Trump is eligible to run as a candidate for president in 2024. Some constitutional law experts have argued that Trump cannot run as a candidate, citing what they say is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, which…
Feb 29
Era of Iowa, New Hampshire kicking off election season is ending
In American politics, tradition dictates that Iowa and New Hampshire kick off the election season as the two major parties elect their primary candidates. Recently, however, Democrats have suggested revising this tradition, arguing that Iowa and New Hampshire do not present an optimal, comprehensive sample of American voters, and suggesting states like South Carolina or…
Feb 1
Why the frenzy over Georgia’s voting laws was misplaced
Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) changed state voting laws after President Joe Biden narrowly won Georgia’s electoral votes over former President Donald Trump in 2020. Voting advocacy groups responded and the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the legislation. These lawsuits alleged that the Georgia GOP in the state legislature aimed to restrict…
Dec 28
Underreported stories from each side
North Carolina student sues school board after suspension for using the term ‘illegal alien’
9 sources | 0% from the left
Getty Images
Haley nabs 128,000 votes in Indiana GOP primary months after ending campaign
24 sources | 5% from the right
Reuters
Latest Stories
Nature gets Spotify artist page to support global conservation efforts
Watch 1:22
7 hrs ago
New Apple ad pushing the wrong buttons for many social media users
Watch 2:49
8 hrs ago
CDC’s new rules should fetch attention of people bringing dogs into US
Watch 1:55
9 hrs ago
Italy curbs solar panels on agricultural land
Watch 1:46
10 hrs ago
Fmr. Fed president: If the Fed wants 2% inflation, they have to raise rates
Watch 8:17
10 hrs ago
Popular Opinions
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.
Arizona bill legalizing shooting migrants is part of GOP brand
11 hrs ago
Ruben Navarrette
NYPD’s lack of lawsuit disclosure shields it from accountability
13 hrs ago
Adrienne Lawrence
Lawmakers must remove conditions on US aid to Ukraine
13 hrs ago
Newt Gingrich
Governments could be censoring social media content
Yesterday
Ben Weingarten