Missouri says the Biden administration censored speech. The Supreme Court will judge

“You combat speech you don’t like or that you think is misinformed or misguided with more speech,” Schmitt said. “Not suppressing or prohibiting somebody else from speaking. And that’s really at the heart of what our First Amendment protects us from and why this case is so important.”

Casey Mattox, the vice president of legal and judicial strategy at Americans for Prosperity, a conservative-leaning think tank, has said he believes Congress will have to increasingly make decisions regarding the regulation of social media companies and how they handle content.

He compared social media to the printing press rather than the town square, and said it has allowed more people to amplify their opinions and find an audience.

“Having an effective voice also means that you’re going to cause concern because of the fact that your speech is actually able to impact people,” Mattox said. “You’re going to have people who don’t like that fact, who want to regulate them.”

Monday’s oral argument will be the second case the Supreme Court has heard about content moderation. Earlier this month it heard a case challenging laws in Florida and Texas that attempted to prevent social media companies from removing certain content from its platforms.

Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican who has pushed for tougher penalties for social media companies, fretted that the court could set up a situation where it’s difficult to challenge the power of social media companies.

“It’s a very significant case when you have a federal district court and a federal appellate court saying that the White House violated the First Amendment and did it by colluding, essentially with the biggest, most powerful media companies in the world,” Hawley said. “And I can’t think of a precedent in our history for that. So that’s a big deal.”