A federal court in Louisiana on Tuesday barred part of the Biden administration from communicating with social media platforms about much online content, a decision that could limit efforts to combat false and misleading narratives about the coronavirus pandemic and other issues.
In the decisionJudge Terry A. Doughty of the US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana said that parts of the government, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, cannot talk to social media companies for “purposes of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or encouraging in any way.” nor the deletion, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content that contains protected freedom of speech.”
Judge Doughty said in giving the initial order that agencies cannot flag specific posts to social media platforms or request reports about their efforts to remove content. The ruling said the government could still notify platforms about posts detailing crimes, threats to national security or foreign attempts to influence elections.
The ruling, which could have significant First Amendment implications, is a major development in the bitter legal battle over the boundaries and limits of online speech.
Republicans accuse the government of working inappropriately with social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to censor criticism and say the platforms disproportionately remove right-leaning content. Democrats say the platform has failed to adequately police misinformation and hate speech, leading to harmful results, including violence.
Courts are increasingly being forced to consider the issue — with the potential to overturn decades of legal norms that have governed online speech.
Republican attorneys general for Texas and Florida are defending first-of-its-kind state laws that prohibit internet platforms from removing certain political content, and legal experts believe the case could eventually reach the Supreme Court. The high court earlier this year refused to limit laws that would allow platforms to escape legal responsibility for content that users post to sites.
Tuesday's ruling, in a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri, is likely to be appealed by the government, but could have far-reaching repercussions, forcing government officials, including law enforcement agencies, not to notify the platform. troublesome content.
Government officials maintain that they do not have the authority to order the removal of posts or entire accounts, but they have long worked with Big Tech to take action against illegal or harmful material, particularly in cases involving child sexual abuse, human trafficking, and criminal activity. other. It also includes regular meetings to share information about Islamic State and other terrorist groups.
The White House did not immediately comment. Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, declined to comment. Twitter has no comments, and Google does not respond to requests for comment.
Senator Eric Schmitt, Missouri Republican and formerly the state's attorney general, said on Twitter that the ruling was a “First Amendment victory this Independence Day.”
The issue of government influence over social media is becoming increasingly partisan.
Republican majorities in the House have taken up the cause, smothering universities and think tanks that have studied the matter with damning requests for information and subpoenas.
Since acquiring Twitter last year, Elon Musk has pushed forward a similar argument, releasing internal company documents to select journalists showing what they claim is collusion between the company and government officials. Although that is far from being proven, some of the documents Mr. Musk ends up with the tort argument.
The defendants, social media companies and experts who study disinformation argue that there is no evidence of the government's systematic efforts to censor individuals who violate the First Amendment.
At the same time, emails and text messages published in cases decided by Judge Doughty have shown examples where officials complained to social media executives when influential users spread disinformation, especially involving the coronavirus pandemic.
The ruling comes in a lawsuit filed last year by the Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general, both Republicans, and four other individual plaintiffs: Jayanta Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, epidemiologists who question the government's handling of the pandemic; Aaron Kheriaty, a professor disbanded by the University of California, Irvine, for refusing to vaccinate against the coronavirus; Jill Hines, director of Health Freedom Louisiana, an organization that has accused of disinformation; and Jim Hoft, founder of Gateway Pundit, a far-right news site.
While the lawsuit has been named against President Biden and dozens of officials at 11 government agencies, some of the examples cited occurred during the Trump administration.
Judge Doughty, appointed to the Western District by President Donald J. Trump in 2017, has made court a sympathetic venue for conservative cases, having previously blocked the Biden administration's national vaccination mandate for healthcare workers and overturned a new federal ban on leases for oil rigs. and gas.
He allowed plaintiffs the discovery and extensive depositions of high-profile officials such as Anthony S. Fauci, the country's top expert on infectious diseases, who told plaintiffs' attorneys that he had not engaged in any discussions to censor content online.
Judge Doughty signaled his skepticism of that argument in March when he rejected a motion to dismiss the case.