March brought about two landmark social media cases with the potential to determine the future of online speech. A few weeks ago, the NetChoice cases evaluated whether or not websites could decide which content to keep or remove from their websites. Last Monday, the Court heard oral arguments in the case of Murthy v. Missouri, which evaluates government communication with social media companies.

Murthy v. Missouri involves multiple plaintiffs arguing that the federal government engaged in censorship by proxy by pressuring social media companies into removing content it disagreed with or deemed “dangerous.” Murthy argues that the federal government pressured media companies to censor content related to COVID-19, citing misinformation and a public health risk.

The plaintiffs argue that “jawboning” occurred when their posts about COVID-19 and other political issues were suppressed. Jawboning refers to the government using pressure and the threat of regulation to coerce groups to censor on its behalf. Unlike explicit censorship or bans, jawboning is harder to identify, especially in the new frontier of social media and online speech. Sometimes the possibility of restriction is as powerful as the thing itself and social media companies comply before formal regulatory action is even taken.

The court is now tasked with providing clarity in this area so that the rights of private social media companies and their users are not at the whim of a raised eyebrow from a more powerful government actor.

The case will likely define the proper relationship between the government and social media companies. What can the government require of these companies? Will individual speech be protected and the free marketplace of ideas remain, even when the government disagrees with what some may say? Where is the line between suggestion and coercion when it comes to content the government dislikes or deems harmful?

The internet is both a perilous and promising landscape. While misinformation and harmful posts will inevitably arise, users and companies in a free market are best equipped to find solutions. The Federal Government using its power to remove posts with which it disagrees could actually make it more difficult for private social media companies to address issues and improve their users’ experience.

The decision in Murthy v. Missouri will likely clarify the rules of engagement for both the government and social media companies. This will hopefully make it easier for both parties to act transparently and appropriately and avoid shadowy regulation.