On July 4, a significant ruling was made in the U.S. District Court of Western Louisiana that has been hailed as a victory for free speech in America. Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump appointee, issued a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order that blocked 11 federal agencies and their officials from further interacting with over 20 social media companies about the censorship of information deemed by the government as misinformation.
The ban on communication specifically targets the censoring of information related to criminal activity, national security threats, attempted foreign influence, cyberattacks, illegal campaign contributions, and voter suppression. These topics are exempt from the injunction, ensuring that appropriate measures can still be taken to combat serious threats to democracy and safety.
In his accompanying 155-page memorandum, Judge Doughty expressed the gravity of the situation, stating that if the allegations made by the plaintiffs are true, this case could potentially be the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history. He emphasized that the alleged actions of the federal government clearly disregarded the First Amendment rights to free speech.
It’s important to note that while the censorship in question primarily targeted conservative speech, Judge Doughty recognized that the issues raised go beyond party lines. The complaint presented evidence of suppressed conservative free speech, including discussions on the integrity of the 2020 presidential election, the security of mail-in voting, the Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the 2020 election, the lab-leak theory about the origins of COVID-19, and criticisms of President Joe Biden and his administration.
The case, titled State of Missouri, et al. versus Joseph R. Biden Jr. et al., was brought by the states of Missouri and Louisiana and a group of individuals who claimed that their First Amendment right to speak and listen was being violated by the executive branch of the federal government.
The court order specifically enjoined several federal agencies, including the Executive Office of the President, the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy, and other agencies and their employees.
The defendants were ordered to refrain from coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to censor protected speech. The plaintiffs presented the court with documents alleging that in 2019, the FBI investigated and flagged 929,000 political speech tweets by American citizens as “domestic disinformation” and sent them to social media companies for evaluation and possible censoring. Judge Doughty stressed that all political speech is protected speech under the U.S. Constitution.
The social media companies involved in the alleged government-directed censoring include Facebook/Meta, Twitter, YouTube/Google, Instagram, TikTok, Linkedin, and others. While they were not named as defendants in the case or parties to the injunction, the evidence presented showed close cooperation between these companies and the federal government.
The plaintiffs argued that government officials used strong-arm tactics such as public pressure campaigns, private meetings, and other forms of communication to collude with and coerce social media platforms into suppressing speech, viewpoints, and content that the government disfavored. It was alleged that anti-trust scrutiny, additional regulations, and changes to Section 230 of the Decency in Communications Act were leveraged to prompt social media companies to increase censorship efforts.
Judge Doughty reviewed voluminous evidence provided by the plaintiffs, including depositions, emails, letters, documents, and public statements by government officials and social media companies. The evidence showed a pattern of collaboration between these entities, with examples cited of social media companies following up on requests and expressing a willingness to meet the demands of the government.
The memorandum also detailed techniques employed by social media platforms to censor protected speech, such as changing algorithms, early detection of misinformation “super-spreaders,” building frictions to reduce the sharing of misinformation, search diversions, suspensions, and permanent de-platforming.
Additionally, the memorandum highlighted the role of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) in working closely with social media platforms. CISA has a unit called the “Mis Dis and Malinformation Team” (MDM) that engages in switchboarding, a disinformation reporting system designed to identify and report misinformation to social media companies. CISA also funds a non-profit organization called the Center for Internet Security (CIS) that performs similar functions.
Overall, this ruling is seen as a significant victory for free speech in America. It acknowledges the importance of protecting the First Amendment rights of all citizens, regardless of their political affiliations. By blocking the government from coercing or encouraging social media platforms to censor protected speech, this decision upholds the democratic principles on which the United States was founded. However, it also raises important questions about the balance between combating misinformation and preserving free speech rights, which will continue to be debated in the years to come.
Source link
