NEW ORLEANS (AP) — order The ruling by a federal judge in Louisiana sets off a high-stakes legal battle over how the government is allowed to interact with social media platforms, allowing officials to create false information about health and other issues. It has raised wide-ranging questions about whether and how authorities can fight back against what they perceive to be the case.
Conservative U.S. District Judge Terry Doty, appointed to the federal bench by former President Donald Trump, chose Independence Day to issue the injunction. Block multiple government agencies and officials. In his words, meeting or contacting social media companies for the purpose of “encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any way the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech” It is forbidden to do so.
The order also prohibits government agencies and officials from pressuring social media companies “in any way” to try to suppress posts, and limits what officials can say in public. There are also doubts.
Mr. Doughty’s order blocks the administration from taking such action pending further arguments in court in lawsuits brought by Republican attorneys general in Missouri and Louisiana.
The Justice Department said it would file a notice of appeal and seek to reverse the court’s order.
“We certainly disagree with this decision,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said. She declined further comment.
Government officials say there are some concerns about the impact the decision will have on efforts to counter domestic extremism, deemed by intelligence agencies to be the greatest threat to the nation, but it depends on how long the injunction will last. He said it would depend on. Steps that the platform performs on its own. The official was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
The complaint alleges that government officials used the potential for favorable or unfavorable regulatory action to address what the administration deemed misinformation on a variety of topics, including the coronavirus vaccine, President Joe Biden’s son Hunter, and election integrity. It claims to have forced social media platforms to suppress content.
The injunction, and Doughty’s accompanying reasoning that the administration “seems to have assumed a role akin to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth,'” was hailed by conservatives as a victory for free speech and a blow against censorship. Ta.
But legal experts expressed surprise at the order’s breadth and questioned whether it placed too many restrictions on the presidential administration.
James Speta, a law professor at Northwestern University and an expert on internet regulation, said Wednesday that “the government still has very important public health expertise, even in the midst of a pandemic. ” he said. “The scope of the injunction limits the government’s ability to share public health expertise.”
Its impact extends beyond public health.
Disinformation researchers and social media watchdog groups said the ruling could ease the onus on social media companies to label and remove election falsehoods.
“As the United States prepares for the biggest election year in the history of the internet era, we need to find ways to better coordinate between the government and social media companies to increase the integrity of election news and information.” said Nora Benavidez, senior counsel for the law. Digital rights advocacy group Free Press.
Social media companies routinely remove posts that violate their standards, but are rarely forced to do so by the U.S. government.
In the first half of 2020, Meta restricted access to 27 items believed to violate U.S. law, most of which were involved in alleged price gouging, according to the transparency report. However, it reported that there were no U.S.-specific content restrictions for the first six months of 2021 or 2022, the most recent data available.
By contrast, Meta restricted access to more than 17,000 social media posts in Mexico during the same period, most of which involved illegal advertising of dangerous cosmetics and diet products, and 19,000 in South Korea. More than one post or comment was reported as violating national election rules.
Administrative lawyers have argued in past court filings that the lawsuit is an attempt to take away administration officials’ own free speech rights.
Justin Levitt, a law professor, constitutional law expert, and former policy adviser in the Biden administration, said the order prevents officials from even speaking publicly to criticize misinformation on social media. He said it was unclear whether it would be allowed.
Louisiana Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Murrill said Wednesday that the order does not infringe on such public criticism unless officials threaten government action against the platform.
Jennifer Grygiel, a communications professor and social media expert at Syracuse University, said Americans should resist the urge to dismiss the incident as politically motivated and be wary of the risk of federal encroachment on social media platforms. He said he needed to continue.
“I’m more concerned about the lack of criticism of government intervention in these areas,” Grygiel said. “As a people, we need to harshly criticize any attempt by the government or federal actors to censor speech through corporations.”
Doughty has previously ruled against the Biden administration in other high-profile cases over oil drilling and vaccination mandates.
In 2021, he issued an order nationwide blocking the Biden administration’s requirement that health care workers be vaccinated against the coronavirus. A panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reduced the scope of the order to the 14 states that were plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
___
O’Brien reported from Providence, Rhode Island. Swenson reported from New York. Associated Press writer Zeke Miller in Washington contributed to this report.
___
The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance our explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. Learn more about AP’s Democracy Initiative here. AP is solely responsible for all content.