The Supreme Court case, Vivek H. Murthy, Surgeon General, et al. v. Missouri et al. (No. 23-411), revolves around the fundamental distinction between government persuasion and coercion in its communication with social media platforms. The petitioners argue that while the government cannot use coercive threats to suppress speech, it has the right to engage in its own speech activities, such as informing, persuading, or criticizing private entities. This case challenges the scope of executive branch communications concerning social media moderation, particularly regarding health misinformation. Respondents, including states and individuals, seek to audit these communications, alleging that they have been coercively moderated due to government influence. The government contends that its actions were non-coercive and within its rights to address public health concerns, and it challenges the standing of respondents to seek relief for alleged future moderation actions.