Get the latest updates on US politics and policy for free.
Receive a daily email with the myFT Daily Digest summarizing the most recent news on US politics and policy.
A judge in Louisiana has issued a preliminary injunction barring federal government officials from collaborating with social media companies to remove specific content from their platforms. This case highlights the tension between freedom of speech and efforts to combat online misinformation.
Judge Terry Doughty ruled that agencies like the US Department of Justice, the FBI, and senior White House staff cannot urge social media companies to delete or minimize content that contains “protected free speech.” Individuals and states, including Louisiana and Missouri, filed a lawsuit last year against the Joe Biden administration, accusing it of suppressing conservative free speech related to topics such as mask efficiency, lockdowns during the Covid-19 emergency, the integrity of the 2020 presidential election, and negative content about the president.
Doughty stated that the plaintiffs have a “likely” chance of successfully arguing that the US government pressured social media companies to suppress free speech. However, the injunction allows limited contact between the government and social media companies regarding criminal activity and national security threats.
This ongoing case addresses the contentious debate surrounding content monitoring online. Democrats often criticize social media platforms for their failure to handle the spread of misinformation, while Republicans argue that these platforms unjustly target conservatives, violating their freedom of speech.
Doughty emphasized that the government’s suppression of free speech was primarily conservative-oriented, suggesting a significant effort to stifle conservative speech. The plaintiffs claimed that since 2018, government officials, including Donald Trump during his presidency, pressured online platforms to censor content and threatened them with reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides legal immunity to internet publishers for user-posted material.
Earlier this year, the US Supreme Court declined to modify these legal protections in cases brought forth by relatives of victims of Isis attacks. The federal government’s lawyers argued that Missouri and Louisiana failed to present credible allegations of coercion against social media companies. Defendants contend that the states are attempting to use government criticisms of social media companies to silence government actors, setting a dangerous precedent.
In late 2021, Elon Musk alleged to have uncovered internal documents showing that Twitter engaged in “free speech suppression,” partly under pressure from the White House. Subsequent reports by journalists supported these claims, alleging that the Biden administration pushed Twitter to silence Covid-19 vaccine skeptics and suspend the accounts of critics.
Jeff Landry, Louisiana’s attorney-general, hailed Doughty’s decision as a “historic injunction against the Biden administration,” safeguarding the political speech of ordinary Americans on social media platforms.
A statement from a White House official mentioned that the justice department is reviewing the injunction. The official emphasized that the administration promotes responsible actions to protect public health, safety, and security, and social media platforms should independently evaluate the effects they have on the American people.
Twitter and Google have yet to respond to requests for comment, while Meta, Facebook’s parent company, declined to provide a statement.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
