The Lawfare Podcast

Jawboning at the Supreme Court

Mar 21, 2024

The podcast discusses the First Amendment implications of government outreach to social media platforms, known as jawboning. The Supreme Court seems skeptical of claims of government censorship. The conversation explores government coercion versus persuasion in content moderation and the challenges in determining permissible contacts. It also delves into the complexities of regulating terrorist speech and the implications for free speech in various legal cases.

51:38

Creator website

Episode guests

Alex Abdo

AI Summary

AI Chapters

Episode notes

Podcast summary created with Snipd AI

Quick takeaways

Supreme Court justices questioned the validity of factual findings in government-platform interactions under the First Amendment.

The importance of transparent government-platform communication to prevent unconstitutional coercion and chilling effects on independent research.

The delicate balance between valuable government communications and safeguarding free speech interests in tech platform regulations was emphasized.

Deep dives

Overview of the Murthy v. Missouri Case and Background

The Supreme Court heard arguments in Murthy v. Missouri concerning government outreach to social media platforms, questioning First Amendment implications. States claimed their posts were censored by platforms under government influence. The case questions constitutional claims under the First Amendment on government-overseen online content.

Introduction

3min

Government Coercion vs. Persuasion in Content Moderation

25min

Government Speech Theory, BetterHelp Therapy, and Rocket Money Experiment

4min

Saving Money and Managing Subscriptions with Rocket Money App

2min

Regulating Terrorist Speech and Government Interactions with Tech Companies

7min

Analysis of First Amendment Doctrine and Legal Cases

15min

Exploring First Amendment Rights in Social Media Regulation

4min

Today, we’re 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—what’s 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’ claims of government censorship. But what is the best way to determine what contacts and government requests are and aren't permissible?

If you’re interested in more, you can read the Knight Institute’s amicus brief in Murthy here and Knight’s series on jawboning—including Perault’s reflections—here.

Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts

Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.

The Lawfare Podcast

Jawboning at the Supreme Court

Episode guests

Podcast summary created with Snipd AI

Quick takeaways

Deep dives

Overview of the Murthy v. Missouri Case and Background

Procedural Posture and Judicial Interpretations

Role of Transparency and Complexities in Government-Platform Relationships

Ambiguity in First Amendment Doctrine and Political Implications

Connection to Net Choice Cases and Implications for Tech Platforms

Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts