Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty of Louisiana prohibited several federal agencies and officials of the Biden administration from working with social media companies to moderate posts that contain “protected free speech.”
In his 155-page memorandum, Doughy granted the injunction in response to a 2022 lawsuit that was brought by attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, which alleged that the federal government overstepped in its efforts to convince social media companies to address postings that could result in vaccine hesitancy during the Covid-19 pandemic or even impact election outcomes.
Doughty, who was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 2018 on a 98-0 vote, reportedly cited “substantial evidence” of a far-reaching censorship campaign, writing the “evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.'”
The district judge also added, “The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition. Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed. It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature. This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech. American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country.”
In July 2021, President Joe Biden denounced social media companies for not stopping the spread of vaccine disinformation stating, “They’re killing people.”
Agencies Named
The ruling listed several government agencies specifically, and that included the Department of Health and Human Services as well as the FBI. Both are now prohibited by the injunction from discussions with social media companies aimed at “encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”
The order also mentioned several officials by name, including Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas among others.
White House Engaged in Censorship?
The move was praised by officials in both states.
That included Republican U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt, who was the Missouri attorney general when the lawsuit was filed, who posted to Twitter that the ruling was “a huge win for the First Amendment and a blow to censorship.”
In addition, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry said the injunction prevents the Biden administration “from censoring the core political speech of ordinary Americans” on the social platforms.
Critics of the president have also argued that the administration has been engaged in such censorship efforts.
“That is, of course, exactly what Joe Biden did when he and his White House staff coerced social media companies to take down posts about Jill Biden, Hunter Biden and Joe Biden’s granddaughter,” wrote Dan Schneider, vice president of MRC Free Speech America, in an op-ed for Fox News. “Biden’s censorship regime goes well beyond colluding with and coercing social-media companies to do his dirty work. The list of federal agencies actively involved in funding censorship efforts is growing constantly.”
However, others have suggested Judge Doughty overstepped in his ruling.
“It can’t be that the government violates the First Amendment simply by engaging with the platforms about their content-moderation decisions and policies… If that’s what the court is saying here, it’s a pretty radical proposition that isn’t supported by the case law,” Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, told The New York Times.
What Are the Administration’s Next Moves?
The United States Department of Justice (DoJ) is reported to be reviewing the injunction “and will evaluate its options in this case,” a White House official who was not authorized to discuss the case publicly and spoke to PBS News Hour on condition of anonymity.
“This administration has promoted responsible actions to protect public health, safety, and security when confronted by challenges like a deadly pandemic and foreign attacks on our elections,” the official added. “Our consistent view remains that social media platforms have a critical responsibility to take account of the effects their platforms are having on the American people, but make independent choices about the information they present.”
U.S. vs. Social Media
This is just one salvo in what could promise to be a war between U.S. lawmakers and social media companies.
In May, a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators introduced legislation meant to protect children from social media. The legislation would seek to “prohibit all children under the age of 13 from using social media and would require permission from a guardian for users under 18 to create an account.”
Author Experience and Expertise
A Senior Editor for 19FortyFive, Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu.
From 19FortyFive
The Second American Civil War Has Begun
