Is Fighting Misinformation Censorship? The Supreme Court Will Decide. – The Journal. – WSJ Podcasts – The Wall Street Journal
This transcript was prepared by a transcription service. This version may not be in its final form and may be updated.
Ryan Knutson: When the baseball star Hank Aaron died in 2021 at the age of 86, people took to social media to remember his legendary career. Some posted about his legacy as a civil rights icon. Others posted about his incredible swing and how he held the career home run record for more than three decades. But there was one tweet that caused a firestorm. It was from the politician Robert F. Kennedy Jr, who suggested that Aaron's death was caused by the COVID vaccine. He said, "Hank Aaron's tragic death is part of a wave of suspicious deaths among elderly, closely following administration of COVID vaccines." The Biden administration asked Twitter to remove Kennedy's tweet, which the company did. It was one of many posts the government asked social media sites to take down during the pandemic. Now, the administration's effort to go after what it saw as misinformation online is under the spotlight of the Supreme Court, in a case known as Murthy versus Missouri. It's one of the biggest tests of the First Amendment in years.
Jess Bravin: This is a case about what the plaintiffs call censorship and what the government calls guidance.
Ryan Knutson: That's our colleague Jess Bravin. He covers the Supreme Court and was listening as the justices heard oral arguments earlier this week. So what would you say is the central question at the heart of this case?
Jess Bravin: The central question is where is the line between expressing an opinion and censoring speech?
Ryan Knutson: Welcome to The Journal, our show about money, business, and power. I'm Ryan Knutson. It's Thursday, March 21st. Coming up on the show, should the government be allowed to ask social media platforms to remove content? The fight against misinformation online goes back years. But in 2021, as the pandemic was killing thousands of Americans each week, the issue took on new urgency. The newly elected Biden administration said bad information put people at risk. Officials reached out to social media companies and asked them to take action on posts they viewed as problematic.
Jess Bravin: There were several types of posts that officials objected to, but the most important one from the government's point of view was generating fear of vaccines. The government believed that vaccines and mass vaccination was the way to get the pandemic under control and that having millions and millions of people fearful of vaccines would be devastating to public health. And there were some very prominent people who had a different point of view and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr is of course one of them.
Ryan Knutson: Kennedy, who tweeted about Hank Aaron, has been a long time critic of vaccines. For the record, the medical examiner said Aaron died of natural causes. The Biden administration also asked social media sites to remove posts that said the virus was manmade, that criticized lockdowns, or that questioned the efficacy of masks.
Jess Bravin: The government would sometimes flag specific posts and point them out to their contacts at the social media platforms and say, "We think this one's a problem." They also liked to talk to the platforms about the algorithms they were using to identify problematic information and, "How are you sorting it? How are you filtering it? How are you finding it?" And this was public. I mean, there were news articles about it in 2021. It wasn't this was like some classified thing. The government's fairly open about complaining about bad information moving across social media platforms.
Ryan Knutson: But some people, Republicans in particular, didn't like what the government was doing. And in 2022, the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, along with other individuals, sued the Biden administration. Vivek Murthy, the Surgeon General under Biden, was named as a lead defendant. The plaintiffs alleged the government's actions amounted to censorship. What was this case's path to the Supreme Court?
Jess Bravin: Well, the case was filed in a courthouse in Monroe, Louisiana where there is a Trump appointed judge who was expected to be very sympathetic to this argument. The attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana asserted the right to protect the interests of the residents of those states, saying those residents, either their views might be suppressed by this illegal censorship, or alternatively their right to read or hear or learn things was being interfered with by this censorship.
Ryan Knutson: On July 4th last year, that judge ruled in favor of Louisiana and Missouri.
Jess Bravin: He issued a sweeping opinion calling this an Orwellian form of censorship that the government was imposing on Americans.
Ryan Knutson: The government appealed the ruling and eventually it made its way up to the Supreme Court this week.
Speaker 3: We'll hear argument first this morning in case 23411 Murthy versus Missouri.
Ryan Knutson: Okay, so what were Louisiana and Missouri's main arguments in this case?
Jess Bravin: The Solicitor General of Louisiana who argued this case for all the plaintiffs said that, "Okay, the government has a right to express an opinion. It has a right to use the bully pulpit and say, 'Americans, don't listen to that foolish information or whatever,' but they don't have the right to say to a publisher or a platform, 'Take down that information. Take down that post.'" Their argument is that when the government takes that step, it crosses into coercion, and coercion of private speech is not permitted under the First Amendment.
Speaker 4: The government has no right to persuade platforms to violate Americans' Constitutional rights. And pressuring platforms in back rooms shielded from public view is not using the bully pulpit at all. That's just being a bully.
Ryan Knutson: I mean, did they have evidence to support that the government was being coercive or forcing them to do it?
Jess Bravin: Well, it's an implication. The implication is that the government has behind it the ability to take all kinds of serious steps against these private companies. And the theory of this case is that when White House officials or people in the Surgeon General's office or at the FBI call Facebook and say, "Take down these posts or don't let this known purveyor of disinformation continue to spread these dangerous theories about COVID," when they do that, they carry with them the implication of retaliation if there isn't compliance, because there could be an antitrust investigation, there could be the White House supporting legislation that would be bad for some of these companies. All those things lurk, at least in theory, in the background. The Louisiana argument, the argument of the plaintiffs, is that this was a kind of pervasive behind the scenes campaign that really left these platforms no choice but to comply.
Ryan Knutson: So what was the Biden Administration's defense?
Jess Bravin: The Biden administration said that, "What we did regarding these COVID posts is no different from what the government has done for decades and decades and decades."
Speaker 5: I think the idea that there'd be back and forth between the government and the media isn't unusual at all when the White House-
Jess Bravin: And government officials are not shy about telling the media when they think they got something wrong or asking them not to publish something or saying, "This person you're relying on is a known charlatan or is a foreign agent," or something like that, "and you shouldn't print that." So they say there are many, many times that you've heard government officials say publicly that they don't like certain things that were published or that TV networks shouldn't run certain shows or shouldn't propel certain storylines on the news or what have you.
Ryan Knutson: The government says it's done this in situations involving national security or war and that this kind of back and forth should be allowed because it's necessary to keep the public safe.
Jess Bravin: From the government's point of view, they have an obligation to protect the public and to prevent the spread of dangerous information that misleads people, and particularly in the context of the COVID pandemic, where public health depended on a critical mass of people obtaining vaccinations in order to stop the spread of this sometimes deadly disease, interfering with the vaccination program, based on completely unsupported theories, was a danger to the nation. It was an emergency. It was a literal public health emergency that required people to know what the actual risks were, and the government says they have to take steps to do that.
Ryan Knutson: Coming up, how the Supreme Court justices responded to these arguments. Our colleague Jess says that many of the justices seem receptive to the government's argument that there is and always has been a normal back and forth between officials and the press. What were you able to tell about how the Supreme Court justices who were hearing these arguments were responding to them?
Jess Bravin: It seemed to me that most of the justices found the plaintiff's arguments problematic, from a number of reasons. Some of the justices seemed to have personal experience in dealing with the media. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Elena Kagan, and Chief Justice John Roberts all worked in the White House for one President of one party or another and all of them seem to recall their own interactions or the interactions of the press staff with the news media and occasions where they reached out to complain about certain stories, complained about certain information that was being published, and urge reporters or editors not to publish it. And Justice Kavanaugh, for instance, he likened it, he said he had a national security analogy.
Justice Kavanaugh: Probably not uncommon for government officials to protest an upcoming story on surveillance or detention policy and say, "If you run that, it's going to harm the war effort and put Americans at risk."
Jess Bravin: And so they seemed to be thinking about, "Well, I used to complain all the time about stuff I didn't like being published and I didn't see any problem with it." And they seemed to believe it was just a feature of the way the government works and the way our democracy works.
Ryan Knutson: Were there camps that seemed to emerge among the justices on this issue or did it seem that they were more uniformly skeptical?
Jess Bravin: In this instance, it seemed that most of the court was leaning toward the government's view of these kinds of interactions being allowable. The only justice who appeared very skeptical of the Biden administration's position was Justice Samuel Alito. He said he looked at these kinds of emails and these communications and the tenor of the language used by government officials, and he said, "The White House is treating Facebook as a subordinate." It's basically asking, "Why haven't you shown us? Why are you hiding the ball from us?"
Justice Alito: They want to have regular meetings and they suggest rules that should be applied, and "Why don't you tell us everything that you're going to do so we can help you and we can look it over?" And I thought, "Wow, I cannot imagine federal officials taking that approach to the print media, our representatives over there."
Jess Bravin: And he said he couldn't imagine that that is the kind of interaction that the White House has with the New York Times or The Wall Street Journal or The Associated Press or other major news organizations and from his point of view, this was not like the traditional back and forth between the news media and the government. This was something that looked different.
Ryan Knutson: The ruling is expected to come by July. What will it mean for the future of misinformation on the internet if Louisiana wins or if the US government wins?
Jess Bravin: Well, if the US government wins, firstly, it depends on what the US government wants to do. I mean, who controls the US government is up to the voters this November. And so a lot of it depends on that. Were this challenge to succeed, I think that you will see a much more freewheeling internet because one of the checks on what appears on social media will be gone. Or is the government's ability to influence what appears on social media will be significantly reduced. Now, whether that has a good or bad effect obviously depends on where you stand.
Ryan Knutson: Murthy versus Missouri is one of several cases involving free speech and online content moderation that the Supreme Court is taking on this year. For example, last month, the justice has heard challenges to laws in Florida and Texas that seek to limit how much social media companies can moderate people's posts.
Jess Bravin: The other major cases involving free speech in the internet also come out of the same view by some people on the right that social media platforms are censoring their views ,are keeping their ideas out of the public discourse. And this particularly came into focus when Facebook and Twitter blocked Donald Trump after they viewed his role in the January 6th attack on the US Capitol as violating their policies or the things that he was tweeting and posting were violating their policies against inciting violence or unlawful conduct or what have you. So that really crystallized for some conservatives the idea that our opinions and our views and our perspective is being blocked by these social media platforms.
Ryan Knutson: Have all these cases had an impact on how social media platforms and also the government are approaching misinformation on their platforms and policing it this year?
Jess Bravin: Well, the government pulled back on some of these encounters because they are facing this type of legal assault. I think for the social media platforms, I mean, they are very powerful. They are ubiquitous for many Americans. And they are facing a range of pressure. I mean, at the same time that they face complaints that they're taking down too many posts, they're also facing complaints that they're allowing up too many dangerous posts. I mean, they are in a position, that they certainly worked hard to achieve, that makes them central to a lot of the discourse in the United States and therefore they get pressure from all sides.
Ryan Knutson: That's all for today, Thursday, March 21st. The Journal is a co-production of Spotify and The Wall Street Journal. Additional reporting in this episode by Jan Wolfe and Jacob Gershman. Thanks for listening. See you tomorrow.
Read this article:
Is Fighting Misinformation Censorship? The Supreme Court Will Decide. - The Journal. - WSJ Podcasts - The Wall Street Journal
- Lets say it plainly: Fact-checking is not censorship - Poynter - April 4th, 2024 [April 4th, 2024]
- Little Cash, Lots of Censorship: Bothayna Al-Essa on Opening a Bookstore in Kuwait - Literary Hub - April 4th, 2024 [April 4th, 2024]
- The danger of liberal censorship | Opinion - The Philadelphia Inquirer - April 4th, 2024 [April 4th, 2024]
- The Democrats are hell-bent on alienating women - The Telegraph - April 4th, 2024 [April 4th, 2024]
- Al Jazeera to be banned soon in Israel in unprecedented censorship after months of persecution - Reporters sans frontires - April 4th, 2024 [April 4th, 2024]
- The Courage to Produce: A Conversation on High School Censorship - American Theatre - April 4th, 2024 [April 4th, 2024]
- Netanyahu's regime is built on censorship Israeli culture is being smothered by silence - UnHerd - April 4th, 2024 [April 4th, 2024]
- Opinion | Lets say it plainly: Fact-checking is not censorship - Editor And Publisher Magazine - April 4th, 2024 [April 4th, 2024]
- U.S. Supreme Court Does Not Go Far Enough in Determining When Government Officials Are Barred from Censoring ... - EFF - April 4th, 2024 [April 4th, 2024]
- Brazils dictatorship: Repression, torture, slaughter of Indigenous people and censorship - EL PAS USA - April 4th, 2024 [April 4th, 2024]
- When Fighting Disinformation Becomes Censorship, New WSJ Swing State Polls, Wisconsin's "Zuckerbucks ... - RealClearPolitics - April 4th, 2024 [April 4th, 2024]
- Bipartisan push to ban TikTok is a dangerous move toward censorship - The Ticker - April 4th, 2024 [April 4th, 2024]
- New Hate Crime Hotline Proves Illegal Censorship Is HERE | Guest: Sheriff Bill Waybourn | 4/3/24 - The Glenn Beck ... - iHeartRadio - April 4th, 2024 [April 4th, 2024]
- Censorship | Rod Kersh | The Blogs - The Times of Israel - April 4th, 2024 [April 4th, 2024]
- South Korean censorship obscures vital information - East Asia Forum - April 4th, 2024 [April 4th, 2024]
- Call it by it's name: Censorship - The Ely Times - April 4th, 2024 [April 4th, 2024]
- Nebraska Obscenity Bill to Criminalize Librarians Fails to Advance | Censorship News - News Letter Journal - April 4th, 2024 [April 4th, 2024]
- Group seeks to fight book censorship as Huntington Beach parent advisory board returns for final vote - Los Angeles Times - April 4th, 2024 [April 4th, 2024]
- Colleges Use His Antisemitism Definition to Censor. He Calls It a 'Travesty.' - The Chronicle of Higher Education - March 28th, 2024 [March 28th, 2024]
- Knesset legal adviser pans attempt to remove judicial oversight on foreign media censorship bill as 'constitutionally ... - The Times of Israel - March 28th, 2024 [March 28th, 2024]
- Misinformation 'experts' are paving the way for more censorship - UnHerd - March 28th, 2024 [March 28th, 2024]
- Meta Refuses To Provide Details On Its Gaza War Censorship - Report - I24NEWS - i24NEWS - March 28th, 2024 [March 28th, 2024]
- Nebraska Obscenity Bill to Criminalize Librarians Fails to Advance | Censorship News - School Library Journal - March 28th, 2024 [March 28th, 2024]
- EU mulls removal of Iranian firm linked to internet blackout from censorship list - Arab News - March 28th, 2024 [March 28th, 2024]
- Supreme Court must rely on the First Amendment, not its own precedent, when deciding government censorship case - Washington Examiner - March 28th, 2024 [March 28th, 2024]
- Exclusive: Iran's Censoring Tech Firm To Be Removed From EU Sanctions - - March 28th, 2024 [March 28th, 2024]
- How the Left Censors Dissent, From NBC to the Dane County Board [Up Against the Wall] - Wisconsin Right Now - March 28th, 2024 [March 28th, 2024]
- UK comedian Photoshops poster to hilariously sidestep censors - Creative Bloq - March 28th, 2024 [March 28th, 2024]
- Censorship is only getting worse in the US - Daily Trojan Online - March 28th, 2024 [March 28th, 2024]
- TikTok ban forgets the lessons of the Pentagon Papers - Columbia Journalism Review - March 28th, 2024 [March 28th, 2024]
- Instagram Creators: Check If Your Posts Are Political The Markup - The Markup - March 28th, 2024 [March 28th, 2024]
- Microsoft faces bipartisan criticism for alleged censorship on Bing in China - The Register - March 28th, 2024 [March 28th, 2024]
- Meta oversight board finds censoring of word 'shaheed' discriminatory - Middle East Eye - March 28th, 2024 [March 28th, 2024]
- AAUW speaker warns of rise in book censorship, 'similar to a pandemic' - Los Altos Town Crier - March 28th, 2024 [March 28th, 2024]
- NSF paid universities to develop AI censorship tools for social media, House report alleges - The College Fix - March 28th, 2024 [March 28th, 2024]
- Cancel cultures: theatre censorship around the world - The Stage - March 28th, 2024 [March 28th, 2024]
- Bill Maher rips govt for censoring 'dissenting opinions' about COVID-19 pandemic that were the 'right ones' - Fox News - March 28th, 2024 [March 28th, 2024]
- EFF Opposes California Initiative That Would Cause Mass Censorship - EFF - February 25th, 2024 [February 25th, 2024]
- X disagrees with Centres censorship orders, calls for greater transparency - The Indian Express - February 25th, 2024 [February 25th, 2024]
- Quote of the Day: Fifteen Months Later, Despite 50 Alterations and Deletions, Censors Have Yet to Approve This Film. - China Digital Times - February 25th, 2024 [February 25th, 2024]
- Social Media Users say their Palestine Content is being Shadow-Banned -- How to Know if it's Happening to You - Informed Comment - February 25th, 2024 [February 25th, 2024]
- Censorship for minors is not the solution | Opinion - PantherNOW - February 25th, 2024 [February 25th, 2024]
- China could be doing better at censorship, think tank finds - The Register - February 25th, 2024 [February 25th, 2024]
- The blatant censorship of the 2023 Hugo Awards - Observer Online - February 25th, 2024 [February 25th, 2024]
- The Library of Translations: An exploration of censorship and desensitization in We Had To Remove This Post - The Student Life - February 25th, 2024 [February 25th, 2024]
- Zimbabwe Army Accused of Forcing Investigative Outlet to Self-Censor - Voice of America - VOA News - February 25th, 2024 [February 25th, 2024]
- U.S. urged to do more to counter China's growing censorship system - Washington Times - February 25th, 2024 [February 25th, 2024]
- Libraries, Beacons of Freedom, Now Face the Dangers of Censorship - Flagpole - Flagpole Magazine - February 25th, 2024 [February 25th, 2024]
- An Argument for Free Speech, the Lifeblood of Democracy - Tufts Now - February 25th, 2024 [February 25th, 2024]
- Librarians could be criminally charged over 'obscene' books in West Virginia bill - ABC News - February 25th, 2024 [February 25th, 2024]
- Metropolis Public Library Director responds to censorship controversyY - The Southern - February 25th, 2024 [February 25th, 2024]
- The Kids Online Safety Act will censor student journalists - Freedom of the Press Foundation - February 25th, 2024 [February 25th, 2024]
- Bills clarify that parental notice not meant to censor books - Richmond Times-Dispatch - February 25th, 2024 [February 25th, 2024]
- Meet the modern-day censors, wielding their purse-strings over artists and their work - The Guardian - February 25th, 2024 [February 25th, 2024]
- Artists alter, deface their own work at YBCA to protest Gaza silence and decry censorship - 48 hills - 48 Hills - February 25th, 2024 [February 25th, 2024]
- Ai Weiwei Says Censorship in the West Is Sometimes Even Worse Than in Maos China - ARTnews - February 6th, 2024 [February 6th, 2024]
- Biden White House Pressured Amazon to Censor Vaccine-Skeptical Books, Internal Emails Reveal - National Review - February 6th, 2024 [February 6th, 2024]
- Report: Jim Jordan reveals secret emails between White House, Amazon, to censor Covid dissent - The Hill - February 6th, 2024 [February 6th, 2024]
- National Science Foundation spent millions on AI censorship tools to quash 'misinformation' - Washington Times - February 6th, 2024 [February 6th, 2024]
- Most Banned Author To Speak About Censorship At Red Bank Talk - Patch - February 6th, 2024 [February 6th, 2024]
- Biden's AI plan to censor you revealed: Researchers say Americans can't 'tell fact from fiction' - New York Post - February 6th, 2024 [February 6th, 2024]
- Letter to the editor: Biden regime's censorship - Washington Times - February 6th, 2024 [February 6th, 2024]
- DCNF Reporter Reveals How Biden Admin Is Quietly Funding A 'Censorship Industrial Complex' In Congressional ... - Daily Caller - February 6th, 2024 [February 6th, 2024]
- Dem Rep Chews Up Minutes In Censorship Hearing To Warn About The 'Dictatorial' Dangers Of Trump - Daily Caller - February 6th, 2024 [February 6th, 2024]
- Supreme Court Deliberates on Government's Influence on Covid Misinformation - Health News - Medriva - February 6th, 2024 [February 6th, 2024]
- Biden White House pressured Amazon to censor books that countered Covid government party line - Must Read Alaska - February 6th, 2024 [February 6th, 2024]
- Congressional Hearing Probes Alleged Biden Administration Pressure on Big Tech to Censor Content - BNN Breaking - February 6th, 2024 [February 6th, 2024]
- Family Book Shop: DeLand bookstore displays banned books - WESH 2 Orlando - February 6th, 2024 [February 6th, 2024]
- The GOP Has a Plan for Online Safety. It Involves Censoring LGBTQ Content. - The New Republic - February 6th, 2024 [February 6th, 2024]
- Let The Government Censor Away Through Agents It Controls, Say Kwame Raoul And Cabal Of A.G.s To U.S. ... - Wirepoints - February 6th, 2024 [February 6th, 2024]
- Emails Show How Biden Officials Considered Covering Up Censorship Activities In The Wake Of DCNF Report - Daily Caller - February 6th, 2024 [February 6th, 2024]
- Jim Jordan Reveals Emails, Accuses WH Of Pressuring Amazon 'To Censor Books': 'Letting Americans Think For ... - The Daily Wire - February 6th, 2024 [February 6th, 2024]
- Angry Chinese people are using a US embassy social-media page to dodge censors and vent about its slumping ... - Yahoo News - February 6th, 2024 [February 6th, 2024]
- The Association of Appin Training Centers is waging a global censorship campaign to stop you from reading these ... - MuckRock - February 4th, 2024 [February 4th, 2024]
- How China Censors Critics of the Economy - The New York Times - February 4th, 2024 [February 4th, 2024]
- A Startup Allegedly 'Hacked the World.' Then Came the Censorshipand Now the Backlash - WIRED - February 4th, 2024 [February 4th, 2024]
- Negative Takes on China's Economy Are Disappearing From the Internet - The Wall Street Journal - February 4th, 2024 [February 4th, 2024]
- 14 Massachusetts colleges land on restrictive free speech list: Censorship and terrible policies - Boston Herald - February 4th, 2024 [February 4th, 2024]
- Norway owns a part of Putin's propaganda and censorship machine - The Independent Barents Observer - February 4th, 2024 [February 4th, 2024]
- Censorship in the West is the same as Mao's China, says Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei - Sky News - February 4th, 2024 [February 4th, 2024]
Tags: