A federal judge in Louisiana on Tuesday restricted the Biden administration from communicating with social media platforms about extensive content online, but the ruling was falsely misleading about the coronavirus pandemic and other issues. It can stifle efforts to combat discourse.
The order could have serious implications for the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and would be a major step forward in a bitter legal battle over the boundaries and limits of online speech.
It was a win for Republicans, who have repeatedly accused social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube of unfairly removing right-wing content, sometimes in concert with the government. Democrats argue that platforms have failed to adequately police misinformation and hate speech, leading to violent and other dangerous consequences.
of judgmentJudge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana said parts of the government, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, cannot speak to social media companies for “purposes.” Encourage, encourage, pressure, or induce in any way to remove, remove, suppress, or reduce any Content that contains protected free speech; ”
In granting the preliminary injunction, Judge Doty said the agency cannot flag specific posts on social media platforms or require reports on efforts to remove content. The ruling said the government could continue to notify the platform of posts detailing crimes, threats to national security and foreign attempts to influence elections.
“If plaintiffs’ allegations are true, the case will likely involve the largest attack on free speech in American history,” the judge said. “Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the government used power to silence its opposition.”
Courts are increasingly being forced to consider such issues, which could overturn decades of legal norms that have regulated online speech.
Republican Attorneys General of Texas and Florida have defended first-ever state laws barring internet platforms from removing certain political content, legal experts say these cases could end up in Supreme Court I think there is The High Court earlier this year refused to limit the statute that exempts platforms from liability for content posted by users on the site.
The Biden administration is likely to appeal Tuesday’s ruling in a lawsuit filed by the Attorneys General of Louisiana and Missouri, but the repercussions will force government officials, including law enforcement, to turn to platforms for questionable content. may be forced to refrain from notifying .
Government officials say they don’t have the power to order posts or entire account deletions, but federal agencies and tech giants have worked together for years to combat child sexual abuse and human trafficking, among others. We have taken measures against illegal or harmful content, including criminal activity. It also including regular meetings Share information about Islamic State and other terrorist organizations.
The White House said the Justice Department is reviewing the ruling and evaluating next steps.
The White House said in a statement: “We remain consistent in our view that social media platforms have an important responsibility to make independent choices about the information they provide while considering their impact on the American public. ‘ said.
Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, declined to comment. Twitter did not respond to a request for comment, and Google did not respond to a request for comment.
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry said in a statement that the judge’s order was “historic.” Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey hailed the ruling as “a huge victory in the fight to defend the most basic freedoms.” Both officials are Republicans.
“What a great way to celebrate Independence Day,” Bailey said on Twitter.
The issue of government influence over social media has become increasingly partisan.
The Republican majority in the House has taken up the issue, thwarting the universities and think tanks that have researched it. Cumbersome Information Requests and Subpoenas.
The judge’s order barred government agencies from communicating with some outside groups, such as the Election Integrity Partnership, the Virality Project, and the Stanford Internet Observatory, for the purpose of inducing the removal of protected speech online. . Alex Stamos, director of the Stanford Internet Observatory, who was involved in leading two of his other projects, declined to comment.
Since buying Twitter last year, Elon Musk has sided with Republican allegations, releasing internal documents to select journalists to show that what they claim is a collusion between corporate and government officials. suggesting. While that has not yet been proven, some of the documents disclosed by Mr. Musk were eventually included in the pleadings.
Defendants, social media companies, and disinformation experts argue there is no evidence of a coordinated government effort to censor individuals in violation of the First Amendment. Massachusetts Institute of Technology misinformation expert David Rand said the government’s understanding of how social media platforms engage with misinformation is limited at best.
At the same time, e-mails and text messages released in a case handed down by Judge Doty show examples of officials filing complaints with social media executives when influential users spread false information. there is especially in relation to the coronavirus pandemic.
Each state said in its lawsuit that it had a “sovereign and proprietary interest in receiving the free circulation of public information on social media platforms.”
The lawsuit was brought by four other plaintiffs in addition to the Attorneys General of Missouri and Louisiana.Professor Aaron Keliaty dismissed The University of California, Irvine, for refusing the coronavirus vaccine. Jill Hines is director of the Louisiana Health Freedom Organization, accused of false informationJim Hoft, founder of right-wing news site Gateway Pandit. An additional four plaintiffs said the social media site removed some of the posts.
While the lawsuit names President Biden and dozens of employees from 11 government agencies as defendants, some of the cases cited occurred during the Trump administration.
Appointed to federal court by President Donald J. Trump in 2017, Judge Doughty has been sympathetic to conservative lawsuits and has previously blocked the Biden administration’s national vaccination mandate for health workers, and has been a key contributor to oil and gas. Overturned a ban on new federal leases of oil. gas drilling.
He granted the plaintiffs extensive disclosure and depositions from prominent officials like Anthony S. He told lawyers for the group that he was not involved in any discussion of censoring online content.
Some First Amendment and misinformation experts criticized Tuesday’s ruling.
Jameel Jaffer, executive director of Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute, said, “It’s unlikely that the government would violate the First Amendment simply by engaging a platform in its content moderation decisions and policies. No,’ he said. “If the court says so here, it is a rather radical proposition that is not supported by case law.”
Jaffer added that the government needs to strike a balance between condemning false speech without stepping into informal coercion towards censorship. “Unfortunately, Judge Doty’s order does not reflect a serious effort to reconcile competing doctrines,” he said.
Judge Doughty’s ruling said the injunction will remain in place while the proceedings continue unless he or a higher court decides otherwise.
Emma Goldberg contributed to the report.
