WASHINGTON - The United States Supreme Court on March 18 began hearing arguments in a social media case involving free speech rights and government efforts to curb misinformation online.

The case stems from a lawsuit brought by the Republican attorneys-general of Louisiana and Missouri, who allege that government officials went too far in their efforts to get platforms to combat vaccine and election misinformation.

A lower court in 2023 restricted some top officials and agencies in US President Joe Biden’s administration from meeting and communicating with social media companies to moderate their content.

The ruling was a win for conservative advocates who allege that the government pressured or colluded with platforms like Facebook and Twitter to censor right-leaning content under the guise of fighting misinformation.

The order applied to a slew of agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the State Department and the Justice Department, as well as the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.

The decision restricted agencies and officials from meeting social media companies or flagging posts containing “free speech” protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Louisiana Attorney-General Jeff Landry hailed the “historic injunction” at the time, saying it would prevent the Biden administration from “censoring the core political speech of ordinary Americans” on social media.

He accused federal officials of seeking to “dictate what Americans can and cannot say on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other platforms about Covid-19, elections, criticism of the government, and more”.

The order could seriously limit top government agencies from notifying the platforms about false or hateful content that can lead to harmful consequences.

But the ruling said the government could still inform them about posts involving criminal activity, national security threats and foreign attempts to influence elections.

In addition to communications with social media firms, the ruling also restricted agencies from “collaborating, coordinating (or) partnering” with groups such as the Election Integrity Partnership, a coalition of research institutions that tackle election-related falsehoods.

Several experts in misinformation and First Amendment law criticised the ruling, saying the authorities needed to strike a balance between calling out falsehoods and veering towards censorship or curbing free speech. AFP