Federal Appeals Court Eases Biden Administration’s Communication Restrictions with Social Media Platforms
In a significant development, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has eased a lower court’s order that curtailed the Biden administration’s communication with social media companies regarding controversial COVID-19 and other related content. The appeals court ruled that the White House, the Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control, and the FBI cannot “coerce” social media platforms to remove posts that the government disagrees with. However, the court did remove broader language from a previous order that effectively blocked multiple government agencies from urging platforms such as Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) to remove content.
Despite the appeals court’s decision, the softened order will not take immediate effect. The Biden administration has a window of 10 days to seek a review by the Supreme Court. The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed in northeast Louisiana, alleging that administration officials were using threats of antitrust actions or changes to federal law to pressure platforms into taking down content, including topics such as COVID-19 vaccines, the handling of President Joe Biden’s son’s laptop by the FBI, and Election fraud allegations. The plaintiffs claimed that such actions were an attempt to suppress conservative viewpoints.
The lawsuit was filed by the states of Missouri and Louisiana, along with a conservative website owner and four individuals who opposed the administration’s COVID-19 policies. Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry hailed the ruling as “a major win against censorship” in a post on X. In an unsigned 75-page opinion, three 5th Circuit judges agreed with the plaintiffs, stating that the administration had violated the First Amendment by occasionally threatening social media platforms with antitrust action or changes to laws protecting them from liability.
However, the court struck down much of U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty’s broad July 4 ruling, emphasizing that mere encouragement to remove content does not always cross a constitutional line. The ruling stated, “As an initial matter, it is axiomatic that an injunction is overbroad if it enjoins a defendant from engaging in legal conduct. Nine of the preliminary injunction’s ten prohibitions risk doing just that. Moreover, many of the provisions are duplicative of each other and thus unnecessary.” Additionally, the court removed several agencies, including the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, and the State Department, from the order.
The case was heard by Judges Jennifer Walker Elrod and Edith Brown Clement, both nominated by former President George W. Bush, and Judge Don Willett, nominated by former President Donald Trump. Judge Doughty, who issued the original ruling, was nominated to the federal bench by Trump.
This ruling by the federal appeals court marks a significant development in the ongoing debate over the government’s influence on social media platforms and the protection of free speech rights. The decision highlights the delicate balance between addressing harmful content and safeguarding First Amendment rights, setting an important precedent for future cases involving the regulation of online speech.
Original Story at www.cbsnews.com – 2023-09-09 04:28:59