MY KOLKATA EDUGRAPH
ADVERTISEMENT
regular-article-logo Saturday, 23 November 2024

Bar on Biden administration's communication with social media platforms about online content

The order, which could have significant First Amendment implications, is a major development in a fierce legal fight over the boundaries and limits of speech online

Steven Lee Myers And David Mccabe New York Published 06.07.23, 09:40 AM
Joe Biden

Joe Biden File picture

A federal judge in Louisiana on Tuesday restricted the Biden administration from communicating with social media platforms about broad swathes of content online, a ruling that could curtail efforts to combat false and misleading narratives about the coronavirus pandemic and other issues.

The order, which could have significant First Amendment implications, is a major development in a fierce legal fight over the boundaries and limits of speech online.

ADVERTISEMENT

It was a victory for Republicans who have often accused social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube of disproportionately taking down Right-leaning content, sometimes in collaboration with the government. Democrats say the platforms have failed to adequately police misinformation and hateful speech, leading to dangerous outcomes, including violence.

In the ruling, Judge Terry A. Doughty of the US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana said that parts of the government, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the FBI, could not talk to social media for “the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech”.

In granting a preliminary injunction, Judge Doughty said that the agencies could not flag specific posts to the social media platforms or request reports about their efforts to take down content. The ruling said that the government could still notify the platforms about posts detailing crimes, national security threats or foreign attempts to influence elections.

“If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” the judge said. “The plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the government has used its power to silence the opposition.” Courts are being forced to weigh in on such issues — with the potential to upend decades of legal norms that have governed speech online.

New York Times News Service

Follow us on:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT