The government is frequently scrutinized for its efforts to limit free speech online. Addressing these concerns, the Supreme Court recently issued decisions on seven First Amendment cases during its latest term.
One of the notable cases, NRA v. Vullo, saw the NRA prevail against a New York financial regulator who had pressured insurance companies to cease business with the NRA due to disagreements over Second Amendment advocacy. The Court ruled that such actions violated the First Amendment, stating, “a government official cannot directly or indirectly coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.”
"Americans for Prosperity" tweeted: "The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously in NRA v. Vullo that state officials CAN NOT pressure financial institutions to cut ties with organizations like the NRA – it’s a violation of the First Amendment."
In contrast, Murthy v. Missouri dealt with executive branch bureaucrats pressuring social media companies to silence speech opposing government narratives. The case was dismissed on standing grounds without addressing First Amendment issues because plaintiffs could not demonstrate a direct link between threats and content suppression.
Two additional cases involved NetChoice challenging legislative efforts by Florida and Texas aimed at regulating social media platforms' content moderation policies. These laws were seen as vague and constitutionally questionable. While NetChoice succeeded in one circuit court but failed in another, both cases were remanded for further analysis.
AFPF filed an amicus brief supporting NetChoice, arguing that social media promotes diverse voices and that attempts to control speech by labeling it as regulable are dangerous.
Other significant rulings included Lindke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, which questioned whether public officials could block individuals from their personal social media accounts under the First Amendment. The Court's response was conditional.
In Vidal v. Elster, the issue was whether the First Amendment required trademark registration for names of public figures. The Court decided it did not extend such rights but clarified this ruling applied narrowly to personal names.
These rulings highlight ongoing debates about protecting free speech from administrative overreach. Casey Mattox of AFP suggests refocusing legislative efforts on limiting administrative power as a solution.
Congress might consider legislative solutions addressing these issues or an executive order from future administrations could be proposed as Matt Perault from UNC-Chapel Hill suggested in Lawfare. However, executive orders are temporary and can be easily reversed.
These Supreme Court decisions mark the start of crucial discussions about government communication's impact on free speech rights.
AFP remains committed to advocating for First Amendment protections against governmental overreach and censorship.
— With commentary from Cindy Crawford and James Czerniawski
