Current:Home > InvestJudge limits Biden administration's contact with social media companies -Thrive Success Strategies
Judge limits Biden administration's contact with social media companies
View
Date:2025-04-24 17:44:51
A judge on Tuesday prohibited several federal agencies and officials of the Biden administration from working with social media companies about "protected speech," a decision called "a blow to censorship" by one of the Republican officials whose lawsuit prompted the ruling.
U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty of Louisiana granted the injunction in response to a 2022 lawsuit brought by attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri. Their lawsuit 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 affect elections.
Doughty cited "substantial evidence" of a far-reaching censorship campaign. He wrote that 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.'"
Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt, who was the Missouri attorney general when the lawsuit was filed, said on Twitter that the ruling was "a huge win for the First Amendment and a blow to censorship."
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry said the injunction prevents the administration "from censoring the core political speech of ordinary Americans" on social media.
"The evidence in our case is shocking and offensive with senior federal officials deciding that they could dictate what Americans can and cannot say on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other platforms about COVID-19, elections, criticism of the government, and more," Landry said in a statement.
The Justice Department is reviewing the injunction "and will evaluate its options in this case," said a White House official who was not authorized to discuss the case publicly and spoke 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 said. "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."
The ruling listed several government agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the FBI, that are 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 mentions by name several officials, including Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and others.
Doughty allowed several exceptions, such as informing social media companies of postings involving criminal activity and conspiracies; as well as notifying social media firms of national security threats and other threats posted on platforms.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit also included individuals, including conservative website owner Jim Hoft. The lawsuit accused the administration of using the possibility of favorable or unfavorable regulatory action to coerce social media platforms to squelch what it considered misinformation on masks and vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic. It also touched on other topics, including claims about election integrity and news stories about material on a laptop owned by Hunter Biden, the president's son.
Administration lawyers said the government left it up to social media companies to decide what constituted misinformation and how to combat it. In one brief, they likened the lawsuit to an attempt to put a legal gag order on the federal government and "suppress the speech of federal government officials under the guise of protecting the speech rights of others."
"Plaintiffs' proposed injunction would significantly hinder the Federal Government's ability to combat foreign malign influence campaigns, prosecute crimes, protect the national security, and provide accurate information to the public on matters of grave public concern such as health care and election integrity," the administration says in a May 3 court filing.
- In:
- Biden Administration
- Technology
- Lawsuit
- Social Media
- Politics
- COVID-19 Pandemic
- Pandemic
- Elections
veryGood! (536)
Related
- The company planning a successor to Concorde makes its first supersonic test
- Florida law restricting property ownership for Chinese citizens, others remains active
- Ohio woman says she found pennies lodged inside her McDonald's chicken McNuggets
- China’s Evergrande says it is asking for US court to approve debt plan, not filing for bankruptcy
- Current, future North Carolina governor’s challenge of power
- Georgia Medicaid program with work requirement off to slow start even as thousands lose coverage
- American Airlines sues a travel site to crack down on consumers who use this trick to save money
- Clashes erupt between militias in Libya, leaving dozens dead
- $73.5M beach replenishment project starts in January at Jersey Shore
- Suburban Detroit police fatally shoot motorist awakened from sleep inside car
Ranking
- Behind on your annual reading goal? Books under 200 pages to read before 2024 ends
- Michael Jackson sexual abuse lawsuits revived by appeals court
- Zooey Deschanel and Fiancé Jonathan Scott Share Glimpse Inside Paris Trip After Engagement
- Suicide Watch Incidents in Louisiana Prisons Spike by Nearly a Third on Extreme Heat Days, a New Study Finds
- $73.5M beach replenishment project starts in January at Jersey Shore
- Nearly 4,000 pages show new detail of Ken Paxton’s alleged misdeeds ahead of Texas impeachment trial
- 9 California officers charged in federal corruption case
- Australia vs. Sweden: World Cup third-place match time, odds, how to watch and live stream
Recommendation
Who are the most valuable sports franchises? Forbes releases new list of top 50 teams
Fulton County Sheriff's Office investigating threats to grand jurors who voted on Trump indictment
The Perfect Fall Sweater Is Only $32 and You’ll Want 1 in Every Color
Zelenskyy visits NATO candidate Sweden for 1st time since full-scale war with Russia
Former Syrian official arrested in California who oversaw prison charged with torture
Connecticut man convicted of killing roommate with samurai-like sword after rent quarrel
'Give yourself grace': Camp Fire survivors offer advice to people in Maui
Mississippi seeks new court hearing to revive its permanent stripping of some felons’ voting rights