Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 63.0

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

29 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

against censorship by the platforms.  See Reply Brief 9.  But 
Psaki’s full answer undermines that interpretation.  Imme-
diately after noting President Biden’s support for antitrust
enforcement, Psaki added, “So his view is that there’s more 
that  needs  to  be  done  to  ensure  that  this  type  of  . . .  life-
threatening  information  is  not  going  out  to  the  American 
public.”  May 5 Press Briefing.  The natural interpretation
is that the White House might retaliate if the platforms al-
lowed free speech, not if they suppressed it. 

Finally, in July, the White House asserted that the plat-
forms “should be held accountable” for publishing misinfor-
mation.  61 Record 19400; see supra, at 11–13.  The totality
of this record—constant haranguing, dozens of demands for 
compliance,  and  references  to  potential  consequences—
evince “a scheme of state censorship.” Bantam Books, 372 
U. S., at 72. 

2 

The Government tries to spin these interactions as fairly 
benign.  In its telling, Flaherty, Slavitt, and other officials
merely  “asked  the  platforms  for  information”  and  then 
“publicly and privately criticized the platforms for what the
officials perceived as a . . . failure to live up to the platforms’ 
commitments.”  Brief for Petitioners 31.  References to con-
sequences, the Government claims, were “fleeting and gen-
eral”  and  “cannot  plausibly  be  characterized  as  coercive 
threats.”  Id., at 32. 

This characterization is not true to what happened.  Slav-
itt  and  Flaherty  did  not  simply  ask  Facebook  for  infor-
mation.  They browbeat the platform for months and made
it clear that if it did not do more to combat what they saw 
as  misinformation,  it  might  be  called  to  account  for  its
shortcomings.  And as for the supposedly “fleeting” nature
of  the  numerous  references  to  potential  consequences, 
death threats can be very effective even if they are not de-
livered every day.