A Matter of Life and Death: Doctors Urge Supreme Court to Uphold Government’s Ability to Combat Misinformation on Social Media
The upcoming Supreme Court case, Murthy v. Missouri, is not merely a dispute about the complexities of contact speech but a matter of significance for doctors and public health advocates who have witnessed the harmful consequences of misinformation on social media platforms. For medical professionals like Eileen Barrett, Chair of the American College of Physicians’ Board of Regents, the stakes are high.
“I have seen firsthand statements that can be problematic at best and downright dangerous at worst, which I fear may cause harm to patients,” Barrett shared. “We have all cared for patients who have lost their lives due to the flu, and now we have all cared for individuals who have perished from Covid-19.”
For years, government officials, including those in the Biden administration, have persuaded social media companies like Facebook and Twitter to remove posts containing misinformation about vaccines, the Covid-19 pandemic, and the 2020 election. However, the Supreme Court must now decide whether these efforts cross the line into censorship that infringes upon the First Amendment.
The case’s outcome could significantly impact the 2024 elections, as it may determine whether the Department of Homeland Security can legally flag posts to social media companies that might be produced by foreign disinformation agents attempting to disrupt the race. If successful in blocking this line of communication, it would undo years of collaboration between government agencies and social media platforms that began in response to Russia’s interference in the 2016 US elections.
Republican officials in Missouri and Louisiana, as well as five social media users, sued the administration in 2022, claiming that it engaged in an informal backdoor campaign of coercion to suppress dissenting voices. They argue that the administration’s actions led to the suppression of coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop in late 2020 and the removal of content identified as “foreign” that was actually written by Americans.
Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance, explained, “The result of this was to silence entire narratives. Policies were adopted without public input, and that’s precisely why we have a First Amendment – so the government can’t do stuff like that.”
This dispute comes at a critical moment in history, as courts and policymakers grapple with social media’s power to shape everything from medical decisions to election outcomes. Legal challenges over social media at the Supreme Court have taken on a partisan tone. The high court is also considering state laws enacted by Florida and Texas designed to prevent social media giants from suppressing conservative viewpoints. However, a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could have serious implications for election security and public health.
“The government has no authority to threaten platforms into censoring protected speech,” Alex Abdo, Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, stated. “But it must have the ability to participate in public discourse so that it can effectively govern and inform the public of its views.”
The case could also impact election officials’ ability to fight disinformation, as well as independent watchdogs and researchers whose work is crucial for securing America’s elections. Civil rights advocates argue that information sharing between government agencies, voting rights organizations, and social media companies is essential in guarding against emerging threats.
From the doctors’ perspective, the trends around vaccine hesitancy are moving in the wrong direction, with misinformation on social media playing a significant role. Medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Physicians, are supporting the Biden administration in this case.
“We have to address daily the consequences of myths and disinformation around health issues, especially regarding vaccines,” said Dr. Benjamin Hoffman, President of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “While our concern isn’t the crux of the Supreme Court case, the impact is really significant.”
