Washington DC
CNN
—
The Biden administration on Thursday defended its communications with social media giants in court, saying they are necessary for the federal government to protect the public from threats to election security, COVID-19 misinformation and other dangers. argued that the channel should remain open.
The high-profile legal battle reflects how social media has become an information battleground for major social issues. This reveals a daunting challenge for social media companies trying to manage the vast amount of information on their platforms.
And ahead of the 2024 elections, independent researchers, watchdog groups, and government officials are attempting to disrupt the country’s democracy by flooding the internet with false and divisive content. emphasized the warning.
In oral arguments before the New Orleans-based federal appeals court, the U.S. government said multiple federal agencies discussed certain social media posts and other charges as the state argued those communications amounted to illegal activity. The company appealed a July injunction that prevented it from sharing information about the company on online platforms. A type of censorship that violates the Constitution.
An appeals court last month temporarily blocked the injunction from taking effect. But the outcome of Thursday’s debate will determine the ultimate fate of the order, which imposed new restrictions on the ability of the Department of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services and other federal agencies to work with technology companies and civil society groups. I will do it.
The Biden administration argued that if the injunction were upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, it would stifle extensive public-private partnerships and undermine the U.S. government’s mission to protect its citizens.
“For example, if a natural disaster occurs and false statements that harm the public interest are spread on social media, the government cannot under an injunction prevent social media companies from further disseminating those false statements. You will be powerless.” Daniel Tenney, Attorney at the Department of Justice.
Now, a three-judge panel from the Fifth Circuit will decide how the executive branch should respond to these threats.
At issue is the U.S. government’s ability to force social media platforms to censor user speech, particularly when the government flags posts on the platform that it believes violate its terms of service. The question is whether the company has exerted unconstitutional pressure on social media platforms.
During more than an hour of oral arguments on Thursday, the three judges presiding over the appeal gave little indication of how they would rule in the case, with one judge saying several times during the hearing. I just asked the question. The other two spent much of their time pressuring the Biden administration and lawyers for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit over the scope of the injunction and whether states have the legal right, or standing, to sue.
Before them is a request to vacate the lower court’s injunction, as well as a request from the government to grant a more permanent stay on the injunction while a judge considers a challenge to it. There are also demands.
In a brief filed with the court in advance of Thursday’s hearing, the Biden administration said a lower court judge had called the government’s interactions with social media companies into, in his words, “a violation of free speech in the United States.” It was a mistake to label it as “possibly the largest attack of its kind.” ‘ [sic] history. ”
“There is a clear and distinct distinction between persuasion and coercion,” the administration’s lawyers wrote, adding that lower courts “have equated lawful persuasion efforts with unlawful coercion efforts.”
Opponents of the case, including Missouri and Louisiana, argued that communications between the federal government and social media companies, even “encouragement but not coercion,” can change an individual’s behavior under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Alleges that it violates the provisions. [by social media companies] “Government actions that violate users’ speech rights.”
“Each of these federal agencies insinuates itself into the content moderation decisions of major social media platforms,” D. John Sauer, the attorney representing Louisiana, told the judge Thursday. Hypothetically, he added, “the Surgeon General could say, ‘This whole speech is terrible, it’s terrible.'” …. But what he can’t do is pick up the phone and say, “Hang up.” ”
In addition to the state, five other people are also plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Among them are three doctors who have criticized state and federal regulations during the pandemic, a Louisiana woman who claims she was censored by social media companies for criticizing coronavirus health measures online, and , including a man who runs a far-right website known for promoting. Conspiracy theory.
Much of Thursday’s oral argument will hinge on the definition of coercive communication and how the court has analyzed government pressure on private individuals in past cases.
But the states also argued that if courts agree that social media companies heeded the administration’s call to action and effectively became pawns of the U.S. government, they could open the door for constitutional violations. .
Last month, when District Judge Terry Doty issued the injunction, current and former U.S. officials, as well as outside researchers and scholars, expressed concern that the order could have a chilling effect on efforts to protect U.S. elections. I’ve done it.
FBI Director Christopher Wray told the House Judiciary Committee in July that “we have serious concerns that foreign adversaries have attempted to interfere in our elections, are attempting to do so now, and are using social media to do so.” There is no dispute.” “Not only did President Trump himself declare a national emergency to that effect in 2018, and the Senate Intelligence Committee found the same thing in a bipartisan, overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion, but the relationship between us and social media. We requested further information sharing.”
The committee’s chairman, Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan, remains unconvinced. Earlier this week, he and other Republicans filed briefs with the appeals court accusing the Biden administration of waging a campaign to silence speech.
“The Biden administration has created one issue after another, distorting the free market of ideas promised by the First Amendment and imposing federal authority on all kinds of speech the Biden administration dislikes, including memes and jokes. ,” Jordan and other lawmakers wrote. “Of course, Big Tech companies often needed little coercion to comply with the administration’s orders on some issues. Keen to please government regulators, it has repeatedly censored accurate speech on important public issues.”