Jawboning at the Supreme Court
Today, we\u2019re bringing you an episode of Arbiters of Truth, our series on the information ecosystem.
On March 18, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, concerning the potential First Amendment implications of government outreach to social media platforms\u2014what\u2019s sometimes known as jawboning. The case arrived at the Supreme Court with a somewhat shaky evidentiary record, but the legal questions raised by government requests or demands to remove online content are real.
To make sense of it all, Lawfare Senior Editor Quinta Jurecic and Matt Perault, the Director of the Center on Technology Policy at UNC-Chapel Hill, called up Alex Abdo, the Litigation Director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. While the law is unsettled, the Supreme Court seemed skeptical of the plaintiffs\u2019 claims of government censorship. But what is the best way to determine what contacts and government requests are and aren't permissible?
If you\u2019re interested in more, you can read the Knight Institute\u2019s amicus brief in Murthy here and Knight\u2019s series on jawboning\u2014including Perault\u2019s reflections\u2014here.
Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.