This week:
- A new Mock Trial: Did the government’s request for social media companies to remove certain posts suppress free speech?
- A closer look at who should be responsible for restricting false information online
- Your Sunday reading list
Free speech, misinformation, charges of government coercion, social media platforms: all part of a highly anticipated Supreme Court decision will be handed down any day now. It will define the way forward for the role of these entities when it comes to the proliferation of misleading information that could impact public health, national security, and election integrity.
In our Mock Trial format, we invite two prominent First Amendment lawyers to make their arguments and give a behind-the-scenes look at what was argued in the case Murthy v. Missouri. They debate the limits of free speech, limits on government action, and what should be done with misinformation on social media platforms.
The Facts of the Case: During the COVID pandemic, the U.S. government requested that social media companies remove posts containing misinformation related to COVID and the integrity of the 2020 election. The states of Missouri and Louisiana, along with five individuals, filed a lawsuit accusing government officials of censoring the free speech present within those posts and thus violating the First Amendment.
The State of Play: Social Media and the News
- 30% of Americans use Facebook to get their news, making it the most popular social media platform for news consumption.
- According to a survey from UNESCO and Ipsos, 64% of Americans think social media is the top source of disinformation and “fake news”.
- A Pew Research Center survey showed that 83% of Americans believe social media sites actively censor political viewpoints they find objectionable.
- 58% of American adults are concerned that AI usage will increase the spread of false information during the 2024 presidential election.
So, did the government violate the First Amendment when they made their requests to social media companies? Give your verdict as the jury on our website and listen to the episode now on Apple Podcasts and YouTube. As always, let us know what you think.
PLAINTIFF
Senior Attorney at the Institute for Free Speech
DEFENDENT
Founder and Executive Director of Upper Seven Law
CROSS EXAMINER
CEO of The American Sunlight Project; Former Executive Director of the Department of Homeland Security’s Disinformation Governance Board
CROSS EXAMINER
Author and Journalist; Writer and Publisher of Racket News
CROSS EXAMINER
Business Journalist and Media Executive; Founder of the Alliance for Trust in Media
JUDGE’S CHAIR
Host and Moderator-in-Chief
DEBATING THE DATA
Who should be responsible to restrict — and protect — online information?
POINT/COUNTERPOINT
MOCK TRIAL: Free Speech, Government, and Misinformation on Social Media Platforms
PLAINTIFF: Charles “Chip” Miller
“Political speech is at the core of our First Amendment. A bright line preventing the government from using its outside voice to suppress dissenting views is necessary to give the First Amendment the breathing room it needs for democracy to survive. In this case, the federal government targeted a specific lawful political speech that it disfavored, and it deployed an extensive clandestine plan to remove that speech from public view and debate. If the First Amendment means anything, it must prevent this kind of interference with the marketplace of ideas.”
DEFENDENT: Rylee Sommers-Flanagan
“The government did not coerce social media companies to remove content in violation of the First Amendment. Social media platforms make and control their own media content policies. Companies ignored FBI flags roughly half of the time. The federal government took no adverse action in response to this refusal and continued to communicate with social media companies openly. The government must be able to communicate information, to use the bully pulpit to share its knowledge, to urge action, and to participate in public debate.”
WEEKLY POINTS OF VIEW
Ayaan Hirsi Ali | June 4, 2024
The Free Press
Watch Ayaan’s debate on whether Islam is a religion of peace
The Sins of the Educated Class
David Brooks | June 6, 2024
The New York Times
Watch David’s conversation on the art of seeing and hearing others
MAGA Republicans tip their hand: They’re after contraception, too
Jennifer Rubin | June 10, 2024
The Washington Post
Watch Jennifer’s debate on whether we should blame elites for the Trump phenomenon
Falling UK Crime Rates Hide a More Complicated Story
Adrian Wooldridge | June 8, 2024
Bloomberg
Watch Adrian’s debate on whether meritocracy is overrated
Keep Democracy Informed With A Tax-Deductible Donation
Your contributions are fully tax-deductible and helps supports our mission to create an informed democracy. It also helps Open to Debate improve and expand our programming, including our innovative Mock Trial episodes. Every dollar you give, whether it’s a one-time or recurring donation, ensures that we can continue to explore issues affecting the public square. Act now — invest in better debates for a better understanding of the issues that matter. DONATE
