Supreme Court Sides with Biden in Social Media Case Amidst Escalating Political Illiberalism Concerns

Washington D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court recently sided with the Biden administration in a significant case concerning government communication with social media companies, a decision that comes amidst growing concerns about political polarization and alleged illiberal practices. The ruling, Murthy v. Missouri, found that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, effectively overturning lower court injunctions that had limited the federal government's interactions with platforms regarding content moderation.

Sean T, a senior elections analyst at RealClearPolitics, recently articulated a broader sentiment regarding the current political climate, stating, "Overall, it is a radical cycle of illiberalism, and it is bad." He highlighted two concepts he believes explain 95% of contemporary political dynamics. One concept, attributed to an "Ace of Spades" quote, suggests a refusal to adhere to old rules when opponents are playing by new ones, indicating a perceived asymmetry in political engagement.

The analyst further pointed to specific instances, such as the controversy surrounding late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, as "escalations from things like Biden folks jawboning social media companies to take down content or the state department spending a quarter billion on 'anti-disinformation' NGOs." This refers to claims, including those made by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, that the Biden White House pressured social media companies to censor content, particularly concerning COVID-19. Zuckerberg testified that White House officials "expressed a lot of frustration with our teams when we didn’t agree" on content moderation.

While the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision in Murthy v. Missouri was procedural, focusing on the plaintiffs' lack of standing, it did not fully address the First Amendment implications of government influence on content moderation. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, stated there was no "concrete link" between government actions and the alleged restrictions. However, Justice Samuel Alito, in his dissent, argued that "high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans' free speech," and that "Facebook repeatedly yielded."

The State Department's Global Engagement Center (GEC) has also faced scrutiny for its funding of initiatives aimed at countering foreign propaganda and disinformation. Reports indicate that the GEC has allocated substantial funds, including hundreds of millions of dollars, to various programs and NGOs focused on this mission. Critics argue that such efforts, while ostensibly combating foreign influence, could inadvertently impact domestic discourse or be perceived as government overreach in regulating information.