A Supreme Court ruling in favor of the government's ability to coordinate with social media platforms was panned by The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board.
The Wall Street Journal condemned a Supreme Court ruling on Thursday that the paper's Editorial Board suggested would give the government free rein to engage in social media censorship.
A 6-3 majority of the highest court gave President Biden a big win on Wednesday when it tossed a lawsuit (Murthy v. Missouri) that accused the current administration of colluding with social media platforms to suppress views on the COVID-19 pandemic.
"Don't be surprised if government officials read the ruling as a license to do more stealth censoring," the Board wrote.
Lower courts had previously ruled in favor of states and individuals who brought the lawsuit, alleging that federal officials had violated their First Amendment rights by pressuring tech companies to censor their posts.
FBI MET WEEKLY WITH BIG TECH AHEAD OF THE 2020 ELECTION, AGENT TESTIFIES
However, a majority of justices said the plaintiffs had failed to show legal standing for the lawsuit.
"Particular defendant pressured a particular platform to censor a particular topic before that platform suppressed a particular plaintiff's speech on that topic," Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion.
She further claimed that the platforms had "moderated" other content before the government engaged with the tech companies and the social media platforms continued to exercise "independent judgment" after they were approached.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the ruling.
"It's a shame the majority ducked the free-speech merits in this case because Justice Alito's warning about stealth censorship seems right given the Covid experience and the Administration's desire to police 'disinformation.' Liberals may rue this in the future as much as conservatives do in this case," the Board said of the ruling.
However, others were more positive about the outcome of the case.
"This ruling correctly affirms the federal government's right to notify the platforms about credible digital threats from foreign and domestic actors and puts the onus on tech companies to take those threats seriously," Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, told CNN.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre praised the ruling in a statement.
"The Supreme Court's decision is the right one, and it helps ensure the Biden Administration can continue our important work with technology companies to protect the safety and security of the American people, after years of extreme and unfounded Republican attacks on public officials who engaged in critical work to keep Americans safe," Jean-Pierre said.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTURE
The Justice Department had previously argued that the temporary ban would cause "irreparable harm" because it may prevent the federal government from "working with social media companies on initiatives to prevent grave harm to the American people and our democratic processes."
However, Alito said, "If the lower courts' assessment of the voluminous record is correct, this is one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years."
"For months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans' free speech. Because the Court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent," he said.
Fox News' Brianna Herlihy contributed to this report.
