In the July 6, 2023 PBS Newshour video Judge limits government's contact with social media companies after GOP states sue after about 02:00, Host Amna Nawaz begins:
..Several Republican state attorneys general argued the Biden administration went too far to suppress conservative views online. And yesterday, a judge in Louisiana agreed, issuing a sweeping and temporary ruling blocking government officials from communicating with social media companies about so-called protected speech.
MURRILL: I think the First Amendment establishes where the government's lines are drawn when it comes to what the government can and cannot do, and what's shocking about this case is the revelation through 20,000 pages of documents we obtained in the early proceedings in this case that demonstrated that the government not only did not know where to draw that line but did not care.
NAWAZ: So where did you draw that line, just to press further on that? There are some exceptions in the ruling. The judge said the government can flag content about national security threats, foreign attempts to influence elections, do you think they should just be limited to that in terms of the exceptions?
MURRILL: Well I think that is speech that is not protected by the first amendment. And then there is speech that is protected by the first amendment. And the government cannot do through the backdoor what it could not do through the front door. It cannot partner with tech companies to censor people's speech it disagrees with. And that is what we discovered through -- and we are still in the early stages of this case. early stages of this case. There are probably a lot more documents to come. We've got 20,000 pages showing that from the white house through the FBI, through (SISA?), through HHS, through the CDC, that there was just a widespread problem where the government had moved from addressing speech that it disagreed with -- which it can do, by the way; it can say we do not agree with what somebody said on Facebook. They can absolutely do that. But what they cannot do is cross the line and tell through a private pipeline, tell those companies under threat and coercion that they have to take speech down.
Question: What arguments (if any) support the suggestion that the Biden Administration used "threat and coercion" when telling social media that they "have to take speech down"?
As a Solicitor General and a Lawyer (in general), Murrill's job is sometimes to argue legal points from a specific viewpoint rather than necessarily provide objective summaries. In this case I'm asking for specific supporting arguments for "threat and coercion" and "have to take speech down".
1Federalist Society biography in lieu of a Wikipedia page