 |
| Photo: JONATHAN ERNST/REUTERS |
Lawsuit against Biden administration tests limits of First Amendment’s free-speech protections
A federal judge is set to decide whether the Biden administration’s efforts to stamp out disinformation online crossed a line into coerced censorship and, if so, what should be done about it.
The case is among the most potentially consequential First Amendment battles pending in the courts, testing the limits on government policing of social-media content.
Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana brought the lawsuit last year, alleging that the Biden administration fostered a sprawling “federal censorship enterprise” that pressured social-media platforms to scrub away dissenting views on everything from Covid-19 health policies to election security.
Missouri v. Biden is among dozens of so-called censorship-by-proxy lawsuits challenging account suspensions, content removals and other suppression of social-media posts on First Amendment grounds.
The case has advanced further than any other of its kind. In March, the federal judge in Louisiana presiding over it, Terry A. Doughty, refused to dismiss the lawsuit, finding the states’ free-speech claims plausible enough to move the case forward.
And in an unusual move at such an early stage in the litigation, the judge also permitted the plaintiffs to gather evidence, such as email communications between White House officials and social-media companies, and depose high-ranking government officials including Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. --->READ MORE HERE
A federal judge will decide whether President Joe Biden’s administration violated the First Amendment by censoring users on social media over topics like COVID and election security — and if so, what to do about it.
Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana brought the lawsuit last year, alleging that the Biden administration fostered a sprawling “federal censorship enterprise” that pressured social-media platforms to scrub away dissenting views, including criticism of mask mandates and objections to Covid-19 vaccination.
The Louisiana judge presiding over the case — former President Trump appointee Terry A. Doughty — is considering whether to intervene in communications between the US government and top social media sites like Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and LinkedIn, among others, court documents say.
In late March, Doughty refused to dismiss the suit, noting the free-speech claims were credible enough to move the case forward.
The case is among the most potentially consequential First Amendment battles pending in the courts, testing the limits on government policing of social-media content.
Doughty’s ruling will affect the state of Missouri and Louisiana’s preliminary injunction, which would prevent federal officials from “taking any steps to demand, urge, encourage, pressure, coerce, deceive, collude with or otherwise induce” social media platforms to censor disliked users, content and viewpoints, the complaint says.
Early on in the litigation, the judge permitted plaintiffs to gather evidence, like emails exchanged between White House officials and leadership at social media companies, according to The Journal. --->READ MORE HEREFollow links below to relevant/related stories and resources:
Joe Rogan and Elon Musk team up to pressure scientist into ‘debating’ anti-vaxxer Robert F Kennedy Jr
Covid disinformation unit made 'hourly contact' with tech firms, its leader reveals
USA TODAY: Coronavirus Updates
WSJ: Coronavirus Live Updates
YAHOO NEWS: Coronavirus Live Updates
NEW YORK POST: Coronavirus The Latest
If you like what you see, please "Like" and/or Follow us on FACEBOOK here, GETTR here, and TWITTER here.
No comments:
Post a Comment