What it means for the election that the government can talk to tech companies

The Supreme Court's ruling on Wednesday that the government can communicate with social media companies about controversial content sidestepped deciding when such communications can violate the First Amendment. Still, it answers a pressing question in an election year about the extent to which the government and tech firms can share information about foreign influence campaigns intended to sway American voters.

The attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, along with five individuals, accused government officials of illegally pressuring platforms, including Facebook and Twitter (now called X), to remove posts about the 2020 election and COVID-19, which they described as a "massive, sprawling federal 'Censorship Enterprise.'" The Biden administration argued it was exercising its own First Amendment rights to express its views about matters of public interest.

Wednesday's ruling in Murthy v. Missouri found the plaintiffs didn't show that the social media companies — which have their own rules limiting certain content — took down posts because of government pressure. "While the record reflects that the Government defendants played a role in at least some of the platforms' moderation choices, the evidence indicates that the platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgement," Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion.

"The Court’s decision in Murthy underscores the importance of protecting online services’ First Amendment right to editorial judgment,” Carl Szabo, vice president and general counsel at NetChoice, a trade group representing tech companies including Facebook owner Meta, YouTube owner Google, and X, said in a statement.

Missouri Attorney General