While all eyes and brains are on what SCOTUS thinks about making Trump emperor-king, a lesser known case will be heard Monday that could have a huge impact on how social media can (or cannot) keep election workers safe this year. Murthy v. Missouri arrives at the high court as the result a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, along with a group of social media users—including some doctors and right-wing commentators—who argued that officials in the Biden administration censored their online speech about COVID-19, the 2020 election, among other issues The plaintiffs don’t claim that the administration directly silenced their speech. Instead, they argue that, by working with social media companies to limit the spread of misinformation, the government unlawfully chilled the free expression of their ideas.
Gowri Ramachandran serves as deputy director in the Brennan Center’s Democracy program.The amicus brief filed by her team from the Brennan Center in Murthy draws the Justices attention to another aspect of election disinformation . Ramachandran explains to host Dahlia Lithwick that combating election disinformation has always been important, but it is especially critical now, as election workers struggle to keep on top of voting issues.
Later in the show for Slate plus subscribers, Mark Joseph Stern joins to talk about the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals taking a swing at teens’ access to contraception, and a new effort to combat the scourge of judge-shopping.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Who Gets to Lie Online? | Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts podcast - Listen or read transcript on Metacast
