Three cases the Supreme Court will hear regarding free speech

Free speech will be a central theme in several of the Supreme Court‘s upcoming cases, the hearings for which could stretch into the summer of 2024. The cases pertain specifically to social media, showcasing how significant online platforms have become to questions regarding freedom of speech.

As social media’s prevalence has increased, governments — from states to federal — have looked to enforce guidelines on the new frontier. However, the lines of constitutionality for these policies are unclear, and many are looking to the Supreme Court for clarification on how social media can be governed and what is considered a violation of the First Amendment.

X RESTRICTS ACCESS TO OHIO GOP SENATE CANDIDATE MATT DOLAN OP-ED ON ISRAEL WAR

The first of the cases concerning social media and the First Amendment will be heard on Tuesday. The other two will be heard later in the high court’s term, which will run until June.

Here are the three matters that will be considered by the high court:

O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier

In this case, which will be heard on Tuesday, the court will present arguments as to whether public officials have the legal right to block individuals on social media platforms if the account is used to communicate work-related information to the public.

While the case could have broad implications, the parties involved have relatively low profiles. Those named in the case include various school district board of trustees members in California and a Michigan city manager.

This comes at a time when public officials, from representatives to the president of the United States, use social media platforms daily to communicate with voters.

Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton

This case will address whether it is constitutional for states, such as Florida and Texas, to stop social media platforms from banning users for controversial statements. The Republican-supported laws were put forward as they argued the companies’ policies were being wielded against conservatives.

However, companies have argued that such laws violate their rights to free speech as outlined in the First Amendment.

Vivek H. Murthy Surgeon General, et al. v. Missouri, et al.

The Biden administration will argue in this case for the constitutionality of its pressuring of social media companies to remove information it said was false regarding the COVID-19 virus and the 2020 election.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Attorneys for various states will argue that the government went as far as to coerce the platforms to remove such posts. An example of the posts objected to by the Biden administration included references to the “lab leak” theory of the COVID-19 virus’s origins.

The administration has argued in previous court hearings that there is a government interest in preventing the spread of false information, particularly in emergency situations.