Law professor Roy S. Gutterman in CNN, July 10, 2023, argues that the plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden failed to show that the government actually censored the speech of social media or that anyone suffered from harm. Besides that, the Supreme Court in two decisions held that prior restraint or censorship could be used in unusual circumstances where the government had “compelling interest to justify its actions.” It follows that the Biden administration was acting in the public interest in encouraging the social media companies to remove lies about Covid-19.
In the meantime, the administration appealed in federal court to block the injunction limiting their contact with social media companies about monitoring user content. The administration claimed the injunction failed to name who in the administration was covered by the injunction and what can be said or not said. It would also prevented the administration from entering into a range of conversations that are lawful and intended to protect the public. (The Associated Press, July 10, 2012, by Kevin McGill)