Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
“A judge [last] Tuesday prohibited several federal agencies and officials of the Biden administration from working with social media companies about ‘protected speech’… 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.” AP News
The right praises the decision, arguing that the government wrongly pressured social media companies to remove content protected by the First Amendment.
“White House officials and public-health agency leaders held biweekly meetings with tech companies over how to curb the spread of misinformation during the pandemic. Former White House director of digital strategy Rob Flaherty and Covid-19 adviser Andy Slavitt were in constant contact with social-media executives… Officials weren’t merely flagging false statements. They were bullying companies to censor anything contradicting government guidance…
“[White House Press Secretary Jen] Psaki warned on May 5, 2021, that platforms could face ‘legal consequences’ if they didn’t do more. White House communications director Kate Bedingfield warned on July 21 that the White House was weighing whether social-media companies should be legally liable for misinformation on their platforms and whether to amend Section 230 to ensure platforms ‘be held accountable.’… The threats were explicit, and the companies knew they could face government investigations and punishment if they disobeyed.”
Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal
“After President Joe Biden publicly accused Facebook of ‘killing people’ for not cracking down enough on vaccine ‘misinformation,’ an employee of its parent company, Meta, responded in almost a panicked way. ‘Reaching out after what has transpired over the past few days following the publication of the misinformation advisory, and culminating today in the President's remarks about us,’ he wrote to the surgeon general that day…
“‘I know our teams met today to better understand the scope of what the White House expects from us on misinformation going forward.’ He later texted the official, ‘It’s not great to be accused of killing people,’ letting him know that he was ‘keen to find a way to deescalate.’ This is not the behavior of someone who doesn’t feel pressure to obey.”
Hudson Crozier, Washington Examiner
“What is striking is not just the blind acceptance that the government should be protecting us from harmful thoughts. It is also the failure to recognize that the government was wrong on many of these points while experts were being banned and blacklisted… The closing of schools and businesses [was] challenged by some critics as unnecessary. Many of those critics [were] censored. It now appears that they may have been right. Many countries did not close schools and did not experience increases in Covid…
“There are now ample studies stating that ‘a new scientific review suggests that widespread [mask mandates] may have done little to nothing to curb the transmission of COVID.’… I expect that these studies will be debated for years. That is a good thing. There are questions raised over the types of studies used and whether randomized studies are sufficient. The point is only that there were countervailing indicators on mask efficacy and a basis to question the mandates. Yet, there was no real debate because of the censorship supported by many Democratic leaders in social media.”
Jonathan Turley, Res ipsa loquitur
The left is skeptical of the decision, arguing that there is little evidence the government coerced social media companies.
The left is skeptical of the decision, arguing that there is little evidence the government coerced social media companies.
“The district court recites the very serious allegation that the Department of Health and Human Services ‘suppressed speech on hydroxychloroquine’ by having Dr. Anthony Fauci make ‘statements on [television] that hydroxychloroquine is not effective.’… A government official appearing on a television show and stating that certain speech is disinformation does not come even remotely close to the government coercing social medial companies into removing that speech…
“As the court goes on to say, it’s not clear the social media companies would have chosen to keep the misinformation on their platforms without the government’s involvement. But if that’s right, then the plaintiffs’ supposed ‘injuries’ weren’t caused by the conduct they’re challenging, and they’re also not redressable by an injunction barring the government from communicating with the social media companies.”
Leah Litman and Laurence H. Tribe, Just Security
“The government shouldn’t be allowed to sidestep the First Amendment by cajoling social media sites into stamping out speech that the constitution prohibits the government itself from outlawing… On the other hand, the government has speech rights, too. Just as a member of Congress may, during a hearing, decry Twitter’s attempts to curtail hate speech as part of a liberal or partisan plot, the White House press secretary should be able to declare her boss’s dissatisfaction with Meta…
“The injunction itself shows how difficult the issue is to slice: The judge writes that the government can’t urge platforms to remove protected speech, but at the same time he writes that the government may communicate with platforms about ‘threats [to] the public safety or security of the United States,’ and even more vaguely, ‘other threats.’ Where do conversations about medical misinformation during a public health emergency fit in?”
Editorial Board, Washington Post
“Given the vast dominion social media companies hold over public discourse, real concerns exist about authorities potentially using platforms to punish critics, invade privacy and limit political speech. Yet instead of surgically targeting the most concerning facets of government engagement with tech companies, the judge’s sweeping injunction prohibits even routine and crucial exchanges between government and platforms regarding issues such as child safety and public health…
“The solution lies not in this ban, but in exposing government communications with tech to scrutiny so that both parties are held accountable for ensuring that their relationships serve the public interest… Companies should expand their voluntary disclosures [about government content requests], allowing civil society and other watchdog organizations to assess whether such dealings are in the interests of users. Knowing that their encounters would be the subject of detailed public reports would help deter government officials from abusing their clout.”
Suzanne Nossel, Los Angeles Times
