Biden Administration Ordered to Limit Social Media Contacts

Article content

(Bloomberg) — A federal judge in Louisiana has ordered key Biden administration officials and agencies not to connect to social media platforms to suppress speakers and viewpoints they disagree with, in a major development that could curtail efforts to combat misinformation about health and other issues.

Article content

The ruling came in a case brought by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri, who alleged that the Biden administration was trying to silence opinions and speakers who have questioned its Covid policies and questioned the validity of the 2020 election.

Article content

US District Court Judge Terry A. the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressure or inducing in any way the removal, deletion, suppression or reduction of content containing protected freedom of expression.”

“The present case arguably involves the largest attack against free speech in US history,” Doughty wrote. “In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the federal government, and especially the defendants named here, have allegedly blatantly ignored the First Amendment right to free speech.”

Article content

Article content

In issuing a preliminary injunction, Doughty said the agencies cannot interview social media companies about removing specific posts or request reports about their efforts to remove content. The government can still notify platforms about posts that detail crimes, national security threats or foreign attempts to influence elections, according to the ruling.

The Justice Department is reviewing the court’s order and will evaluate its options in this case, according to a White House official. The Biden administration has strengthened responsible actions to protect public health, safety, and security when facing challenges such as a deadly pandemic and foreign attacks on our elections, the official said in a statement.

Article content

The official said that social media platforms should take into account the effects their platforms have on the American people.

Meta Platforms Inc. refused. comment. Twitter Inc. did not respond. Specifically to inquiries about the judge’s decision, Alphabet Inc.’s Google did not respond. to request comment.

The New York Times reported earlier about the ruling.

US courts are increasingly called upon to be arbiters in disputes over social media content, which is becoming increasingly divisive. Conservatives complain that platforms censor their opinions, while liberals insist companies are not doing enough to remove false, misleading, and harmful content.

GOP lawmakers have moved away from antitrust measures to address concerns about social media content to focus on investigating what they denounce as conservative censorship.

Article content

One of the first legislative nudges in this direction was introduced earlier this year by the chairs of the Oversight, Accountability, Energy, Commerce and Judiciary Committees, who said Biden administration officials and other Democrats have pressured social media platforms to remove politically inappropriate content. .

Read more: BGOV Code Summary: House-Passed HR 140, Internet Censorship

The measure, which Democrats oppose and is unlikely to become law, would define censorship as influencing or coercing, or directing others to influence or coerce, to remove First Amendment-protected speech on any interactive computer service, such as social media platforms. It may also include seeking to limit an individual’s access to a Platform or adding disclaimers to legal speech.

Article content

The battle over social media mediation is likely to reach the Supreme Court, which earlier this year delayed reviewing Texas and Florida laws that would allow users to sue online platforms over alleged political censorship.

In 2021, Texas and Florida passed separate laws that made it illegal for tech platforms to block or demote content that violates their terms of service. The measures, which are currently prohibited, would allow individual users to sue companies in upcoming cases over alleged political censorship.

The case is Missouri v. Biden, 3: 22-cv-01213, US District Court, West District of Louisiana (Monroe).

– With assistance from Priya Anand.

Article content