A coalition of left-wing groups is urging the Supreme Court to allow the Biden administration to maintain its censorship efforts on social media.
The Supreme Court agreed to take up Murthy v. Missouri in October challenging the federal government’s communication with social media companies to suppress speech online, which a district court judge found in July likely violated the First Amendment. Three left-wing organizations urged the justices on Dec. 22 to reject the lower court’s injunction blocking the administration from communicating with social media companies for the purposes of censoring speech, writing in an amicus brief that “disinformation is a major threat to the fabric of democracy.”
“The spread of mis- and disinformation on social media platforms is commonplace,” the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and Common Cause wrote in the brief. “Examples abound of malicious actors using such platforms to spread false and intimidating messages to dissuade people from voting or to undermine election integrity— including domestic actors using scare tactics exploiting longstanding fears in Black and brown communities and foreign actors capitalizing on racial divisions to sow discord and doubt.”
The three organizations behind the brief are part of a group called the Election Protection Coalition, and they have “met with officials from DOJ, DHS, CISA, and other federal agencies, as well as state and local officials” to relay information about elections, according to the brief.
The Leadership Conference’s over 200-member organizations include the National Center for Transgender Equality, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The groups argue the district court’s injunction infringes on their right to “petition the government about vitally important election security issues.”
District of Louisiana Judge Terry A. Doughty’s injunction also prevented the government from “collaborating, coordinating, partnering, switchboarding, and/or jointly working with” research groups and projects that advocate for censorship. The Fifth Circuit later modified the injunction to remove this section, but the groups argue the language is still “so overbroad and vague that it is likely to cause uncertainty in the minds of government officials at the affected agencies, as to what actions are allowed, thus leading to reductions in their interactions with social media platforms.”
“This will endanger the right to vote as information sharing between and among civil society, government, and social media companies is essential to prevent malicious election interference and voter suppression efforts,” the groups wrote.
All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline, and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
- Jack Smith, Fani Willis forced to defend Trump prosecutions in simultaneous testimonies - December 18, 2025
- Exclusive: Biden State Dept. appeared to ignore emails from would-be Trump assassin - December 16, 2025
- Trump DOJ seeks to block officials from testifying in Judge Boasberg probe - December 12, 2025
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
BPR INSIDER COMMENTS
Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!
