WASHINGTON — As social media sites were flooded with misleading messages about vaccine safety, mask efficacy, the origins of Covid-19 and federal shutdowns at the height of the pandemic, Biden officials suggested platforms for deleting posts, deleting accounts and magnifying correct information.
The Supreme Court can now determine whether the government violated Americans’ First Amendment rights through those moves, and dictate a new era on what role, if any, officials can play in countering misinformation on social media.
advertisement
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments next month in a case that could have sweeping ramifications for federal health agencies’ communications in particular. Murthy v. Missouri alleges that federal officials coerced social media and search giants like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Google to remove or downgrade posts that questioned vaccine safety, Covid’s origins, or shutdown measures. Biden lawyers argue that officials made requests but never forced companies.
Government advocates say that if the court limits the government’s power, it could simply cripple agencies struggling to achieve higher vaccination rates and other critical public health initiatives. Critics argue that federal public health officials, already plagued by distrust and apathy nationally, have never tried to remove misleading messages in the first place.
“The most productive way is to have a very vigorous offensive strategy on social media, which we didn’t have,” said Paul Mango, Trump’s deputy chief of staff at the Department of Health and Human Services who worked intensively on Operation Warp Speed, the effort to push for the commercialization of Covid-19 vaccines and treatments. “Instead of trying to keep bad data away through suppression, why don’t we have an overall competitive strategy to disseminate accurate data?”
advertising
While the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials takes no position on the case or the government’s argument that it can ask sites to remove social media, its medical lead, Marcus Plescia, also said the most productive use of federal public health resources is contrarian. -Messaging.
“We’re limited in how much we can control misinformation,” Plescia said. “The first [request from state officials] is that we want a smart message that has been tested and proven effective. »
For their part, social media executives, such as Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, have said in the past that they themselves have evolved and changed their content moderation policies. But tech executives are unlikely to step in now, given that they are in the midst of two more moodstorms. One is a lawsuit against a Florida law that would well diminish the ability of platforms to moderate false and misleading posts. Another factor is last week’s very public attack by senators who fail to facilitate greater content moderation for the protection of young people on their platforms.
The recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, which also requested testimony from TikTok, Snap, and Discord executives, stands in stark contrast to the coronavirus misinformation trial, as it instead suggests that tech corporations are doing enough to rein in their platforms. Josh Hawley (R-Mo. ) suggested Zuckerberg stand up and apologize to the families in the courtroom for the harm caused by using Facebook and Instagram.
Senators from both parties willing to eliminate federal protections for tech corporations that host problematic or false content.
“Now is the time to make sure that others suffering from those symptoms can take legal action on behalf of their loved ones. Nothing will replace until the door of the court is open to those who suffer from social media,” said Lindsay Graham, R-South. Cockatiel.
Biden’s lawyers are set to argue that he, and his officials, can make the same type of demands.
A lower courts in this case ruled that the federal government can’t put any pressure on social media platforms to censor their content. Under that ruling, even public statements by the president about the teen mental health crisis could be construed as undue pressure, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued in a legal filing.
For example, under this ruling, a White House condemning the role social media plays in teens’ intellectual fitness and calling for conceivable legislative reform “could be viewed as coercion or significant encouragement as part of the Fifth Circuit’s reunderstanding of those concepts,” he wrote. .
But this case didn’t start with mental health, and much of it will likely rest on private rather than public comments from federal officials.
The lawsuit, brought through then-Missouri attorney Eric Schmitt, reflects a developing trend of state attorneys mounting politically adverse cases opposed to the federal government. Another state, Louisiana, joined the lawsuit with three doctors who co-authored a paper on herd immunity. an anti-lockdown activist in Louisiana and a conservative news site, The Gateway Pundit.
Federal officials began communicating with the social platforms in early 2021, according to court documents. Those communications included White House messages to one site saying to take a post down “ASAP” and “keep an eye out for tweets that fall in the same … genre” or instructions to another platform to “remove [an] account immediately.” CDC officials also regularly flagged posts to the companies and in one instance asked “what [was] being done on the amplification-side” to promote official messaging on coronavirus information.
Later, according to court documents, government officials began asking Facebook and others for information and important points about their moderation policies and standards. They held regular meetings, recommended changes, and at least one company created a portal to prioritize government requests. In an article detailing Facebook’s moderation struggle, one official wrote to the company that they felt Facebook was “not looking to solve the problem” and that the White House “internally. . . I was looking in our functions for what to do about it. ‘”
In July 2021, the feds expressed their frustration to the public. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said at a press conference that “modern generation corporations have allowed bad data to poison our data environment, with little accountability to their users. “
He added: “We ask them to operate with more transparency and accountability. We ask you to keep a closer eye on misinformation. On the same day, he issued his first formal opinion as a general surgeon: on combating fitness misinformation.
Despite a lower court ruling that such statements may simply constitute misplaced pressure, experts who spoke to STAT said it was hard to believe the Supreme Court would go this far.
“The government has and has the ability to talk to personal entities about the risks that exist,” said Clay Calvert, senior research fellow for generation policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. “The explanation for why this case is so moot is the inherently political department of the content in question, which has divided Republicans and Democrats over issues like mask mandates and Covid vaccines. “
The overriding issue before the court is whether such moves constitute government coercion over a personal enterprise, which would constitute an excess of its authority. Justice Department lawyers say that while officials have “frequently suggested” cutting or demoting positions, they have not forced corporations to: and corporations have not done so.
An appeals court ruled that the movements of some officials, specifically those at the White House, were potentially coercive, but specifically reduced a district court’s blanket ban on government officials’ correspondence with social media companies. In doing so, it laid the groundwork for some communications, namely CDC alerts on evolving recommendations and explanations of true and false data, such as valid dispatches.
But that doesn’t mean the CDC will be transparent when the Supreme Court considers the case in March. Justice Samuel Alito already expressed some of his apprehension when he clashed with other justices over lifting the ban before hearing arguments.
“At this time in the history of our country, what the Court has done, I fear, will be seen by some as giving the Government a green light to use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news,” Alito wrote.
Even if the court rejects broader controls on federal communications with social networking sites, the case may have far-reaching implications for the effectiveness of federal health officials’ messaging, legal experts say.
“It will have a chilling effect on the government. . . especially at the CDC,” said Dorit Reiss, a law professor at the University of California, San Francisco. “Because the line is blurry and because they shouldn’t be accused of coercion, they won’t know when they can speak out on social media. »
Correction: A previous version of this article misstated Marcus Plescia’s title.
CDC
Coronavirus
HHS
legal
public health
SCOTUS
White House
Reporting on the frontiers of medicine
Enterprise
Account
Else
Unlimited essential journalism in biotechnology, medicine and life sciences.
Your go-to place for the latest biopharma and life sciences news and information
Unlimited to must-have journalism in biotechnology, medicine, and life sciences.
Your go-to place for the latest biopharma and life sciences news and information