Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf
Page Number: 49.0

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

15 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

an  independent  news  source  or  a  journalistic  entity  dedi-
cated to holding the Government accountable for its actions. 
Instead, Facebook’s responses resembled that of a subser-
vient entity determined to stay in the good graces of a pow-
erful taskmaster.  Facebook told White House officials that 
it would “work . . . to gain your trust.”  Id., at 9365.  When 
criticized,  Facebook  representatives  whimpered  that  they 
“thought  we  were  doing  a  better  job”  but  promised  to  do 
more  going  forward.  Id.,  at  9371.    They  pleaded  to  know
how  they  could  “get  back  to  a  good  place”  with  the  White 
House.  Id., at 9403.  And when denounced as “killing peo-
ple,”  Facebook  responded  by  expressing  a  desire  to  “work 
together collaboratively” with its accuser.  9 id., at 2713; 78 
id., at 25174.  The picture is clear. 

B 
While all this was going on, Jill Hines and others were
subjected to censorship.  Hines serves as the co-director of 
Health Freedom Louisiana, an organization that advocated 
against vaccine and mask mandates during the pandemic.
Over  the  course  of  the  pandemic—and  while  the  White 
House was pressuring Facebook—the platform repeatedly 
censored Hines’s speech. 

For instance, in the summer and fall of 2021, Facebook 
removed two groups that Hines had formed to discuss the 
vaccine.  4 id., at 1313–1315.  In January 2022, Facebook 
restricted posts from Hines’s personal page “for 30 days . . . 
for sharing the image of a display board used in a legislative
hearing that had Pfizer’s preclinical trial data on it.”  Id., at 
1313.  In late May, Facebook restricted Hines for 90 days
for sharing an article about “increased emergency calls for 
teens  with  myocarditis  following  [COVID]  vaccination.” 
Id., at 1313–1314.  Hines’s public pages, Reopen Louisiana 
and Health Freedom Louisiana, were subjected to similar 
treatment.  Facebook’s disciplinary actions meant that both
public pages suffered a drop in viewership; as Hines put it,