Biden Administration Faces Preliminary Injunction Against Putting Pressure on Social Media

[Foxi4]

A federal judge has just issued an injunction barring the administration and several federal agencies from contacting Social Media sites in regards to censorship of political opinions that would’ve otherwise been protected by the First Amendment. The lawsuit, led by Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, alleged that the Biden Administration has created a “federal censorship enterprise”, pressuring Social Media sites into scrubbing what it deemed to be misinformation regarding COVID-19 policies, the origins of the virus, the Hunter Biden laptop story, election security and other sensitive topics. In his 155-page ruling U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty stated:

“[T]he evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario, (…) During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’ (…) The plaintiffs have presented substantial evidence in support of their claims that they were the victims of a far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign.”

Missouri v. Biden is among dozens of cases regarding “censorship-by-proxy”, meaning censorship by the company running a site under pressure from the federal government, rather than by the government itself directly.

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/ju...mpled-on-free-speech-on-social-media-29334362
http://archive.today/cTZbn

EDIT: Something’s gone wrong with the BBCode, I’ll have to look at the post on a PC instead of my phone. For now I’ll post the raw links to the WSJ article and an archived, unpaywalled copy for non-subscribers.

 

[RedColoredStars]

Imagine that. A Trump appointed judge wanting to protect lies and misinformation. If I didn't know any better, I'd almost think the gop NEEDS their lies in order to keep their base. Oh, wait.

 

[Foxi4]

Imagine that. A Trump appointed judge wanting to protect lies and misinformation. If I didn't know any better, I'd almost think the gop NEEDS their lies in order to keep their base. Oh, wait.

The argument against such practices is solid, in my opinion. It’s not the government’s job to tell a private company that certain posts should or shouldn’t be moderated so long as the content involved is not illegal. They can’t censor speech directly, so it stands to reason that they shouldn’t do so indirectly either. This is similar to walking up to someone saying “Gee, that’s a nice company you have there - it’d be a shame if something happened to it. In any case, we need this and that looked at, if you know what I mean”. It is inherently intimidating to be contacted by the government about a specific piece of content, even when there’s no direct request to speak of. The suggestion to have it removed is de facto there. The site already has a moderating team and existing content policies, it doesn’t need helpful suggestions from the state on how it should run. It’s not the removal of content that’s the issue here - the site can already do that according to its pre-existing code of conduct and terms of service, it’s the government’s involvement in the process that’s concerning.

In the ruling, Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana said that parts of the government, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, could not talk to social media companies 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.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/04/business/federal-judge-biden-social-media.html

This ruling does not limit the government’s ability to contact SM’s for law enforcement purposes, it only refers to attempts to compel or restrict speech, which is perfectly reasonable and in line with the First Amendment.

 

[chrisrlink]

The argument against such practices is solid, in my opinion. It’s not the government’s job to tell a private company that certain posts should or shouldn’t be moderated so long as the content involved is not illegal. They can’t censor speech directly, so it stands to reason that they shouldn’t do so indirectly either. This is similar to walking up to someone saying “Gee, that’s a nice company you have there - it’d be a shame if something happened to it. In any case, we need this and that looked at, if you know what I mean”. It is inherently intimidating to be contacted by the government about a specific piece of content, even when there’s no direct request to speak of. The suggestion to have it removed is de facto there. The site already has a moderating team and existing content policies, it doesn’t need helpful suggestions from the state on how it should run. It’s not the removal of content that’s the issue here - the site can already do that according to its pre-existing code of conduct and terms of service, it’s the government’s involvement in the process that’s concerning.

This ruling does not limit the government’s ability to contact SM’s for law enforcement purposes, it only refers to attempts to compel or restrict speech, which is perfectly reasonable and in line with the First Amendment.

i must admit your status,suits you, well know what fuck it I've been biting my tongue about you for far too long,anyways i agree with the guy above you freedom of speech is too broad some things can't be said but only in private to a counselor and this misinformation needs to be taken down especially if it willl lead to harm or even government distabilization (Like planning of attacks on our institutions or Jan 6th was a hoax etc etc) back to the couselor thing you know crazy people can be right too which for once i hope I'm not

 

[Foxi4]

i must admit your status,suits you, well know what fuck it I've been biting my tongue about you for far too long,anyways i agree with the guy above you freedom of speech is too broad some things can't be said but only in private to a counselor and this misinformation needs to be taken down especially if it willl lead to harm or even government distabilization (Like planning of attacks on our institutions or Jan 6th was a hoax etc etc) back to the couselor thing you know crazy people can be right too which for once i hope I'm not

I have no idea what you’re trying to say. It is the government’s job to perform regular law enforcement activities - this *already* includes following up on credible threats of violence or intent to cause harm. If someone posts a bomb threat or plans a mass shooting, yeah, the government has a vested interest in stepping in to stop that from happening. Nobody in their right mind argues otherwise. This ability is in no way limited by the injunction. It is *not* the government’s job to decide what is and is not “misinformation”, or to silence political dissent. In fact, the Constitution explicitly prohibits the government from doing that. What you’re effectively saying is that the government cannot dispatch the Police to subdue a peaceful protest, but it *can* strongly suggest to a security firm that everyone involved should be forcibly removed from a given area, and then pretend that the end result has nothing to do with their correspondence. After all, they’re not the ones holding the clubs that whack on the protestor’s heads - the security firm did it, right? That’s an asinine position.

 

[RAHelllord]

Weird how it only became a problem once the Biden admin was doing it, and did so in a much less aggressive way than the administration before him. I'm sure that's just a coincidence, though.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-legacy-of-trumps-social-media-content-policing/

 

[Foxi4]

Weird how it only became a problem once the Biden admin was doing it, and did so in a much less aggressive way than the administration before him. I'm sure that's just a coincidence, though.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-legacy-of-trumps-social-media-content-policing/

It’s not acceptable regardless of who does it as far as I’m concerned. Defending the rights enumerated in the Constitution supersedes the party line, it’s in everyone’s interest to protect them. The preliminary injunction is a step in the right direction and should protect social media sites from having to moderate content under duress, at least temporarily. They’re free to have whatever community guidelines and terms of service they want, the only thing that changes is that the government can’t tattle on users unless there’s a reasonable suspicion of a crime, which is how it should’ve always worked in the first place.

 

[Xzi]

The lawsuit, led by Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana

Lemme guess, two states with some of the lowest vaccination rates and highest amount of COVID-19 deaths. "You're victimizing us by not allowing us to kill our own constituents! WAAAH!" My god do Republicans suck. I'm gonna stop assuming there's a floor to how low they can sink.

It’s not acceptable regardless of who does it as far as I’m concerned. Defending the rights enumerated in the Constitution supersedes the party line, it’s in everyone’s interest to protect them. The preliminary injunction is a step in the right direction and should protect social media sites from having to moderate content under duress, at least temporarily. They’re free to have whatever community guidelines and terms of service they want, the only thing that changes is that the government can’t tattle on users unless there’s a reasonable suspicion of a crime, which is how it should’ve always worked in the first place.

I disagree, if social media platforms want to keep their section 230 protections, they have to be held to a certain standard. Facebook has started entire civil wars with dangerous misinformation it allowed to spread. Sites are free to make their own rules, but there must be common sense universal rules in place as well.

 

[Foxi4]

Lemme guess, two states with some of the lowest vaccination rates and highest amount of COVID-19 deaths. "You're victimizing us by not allowing us to kill our own constituents! WAAAH!" My god do Republicans suck. I'm gonna stop assuming there's a floor to how low they can sink.

There’s a saying that I hold quite dear - “sometimes you can arrive at the right conclusion by following the wrong train of thought”. Most of government-SM correspondence is obviously not available to the public, but what little of it was leaked or willingly published does make me uncomfortable. It’s perfectly reasonable for a government to contact a social media company in regards to content pertaining to crimes, terrorism or other credible threats, but once it starts meddling with freedom of the press, I have a big problem with that.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532.amp
https://nypost.com/2022/12/04/fbi-warned-twitter-of-hunter-biden-hack-before-censoring-the-post/amp/

There’s also the issue of the opposite happening, by which I mean boosting government propaganda.

https://theintercept.com/2022/12/20/twitter-dod-us-military-accounts/

The notion that what you read online might not be organic and could very well be tainted by government interference despite coming from a “verified source” should be chilling to most people. It’d be nice if we could look past party divisions for five seconds to at least acknowledge that.

I disagree, if social media platforms want to keep their section 230 protections, they have to be held to a certain standard. Facebook has started entire civil wars with dangerous misinformation it allowed to spread. Sites are free to make their own rules, but there must be common sense universal rules in place as well.

The government is not a benchmark of common sense and is not supposed to make judgement calls on speech - it is strictly prohibited from doing that. I trust an individual site’s management, and the public at large voting with their clicks significantly more than I trust the state. They should not be involved in Internet discourse that does not violate the law, much in the same way as they’re not involved in public discourse that doesn’t. 230 protections are contingent on removing content that is illegal, not content that is inconvenient.

 

[Xzi]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532.amp

"Zuckerberg tells Rogan..."

Gag me with a spoon, why don't you. All this tells me is that Zuck is in Trump's corner, which I already knew because he's funded in large part by Peter Thiel.

The notion that what you read online might not be organic and could very well be tainted by government interference despite coming from a “verified source” should be chilling to most people. It’s be nice if we could look past party divisions for five seconds to at least acknowledge that.

Brother, you can't even be sure that what you read online was written by a human any more. And that's a big part of the problem with this case: allowing more misinformation through the filters also means allowing more bots and scammers through.

 

[Foxi4]

"Zuckerberg tells Rogan..."

Gag me with a spoon, why don't you. All this tells me is that Zuck is in Trump's corner, which I already knew because he's funded in large part by Peter Thiel.

It’s an interview. Zuckerberg said it, and he runs Facebook, so he speaks for Facebook. Whether he said it to Rogan or to a frog makes no difference. He said what he said, the decision was influenced by the F.B.I. giving them prior warning of “Russian disinformation” concerning specific subjects, and the story “fit the pattern”. The end result of that was an American publication getting blackballed by social media at large and a story getting snuffed out. This should bother you.

Brother, you can't even be sure that what you read online was written by a human any more. And that's a big part of the problem with this case: allowing more misinformation through the filters also means allowing more bots and scammers through.

It is trivial to filter out messages made by bots or AI. Even if it wasn’t, the government shouldn’t be involved in filtering content, that’s not the government’s job. If anything, a large tech company is *infinitely* more qualified to conduct such filtering conpared the government, they’re on the forefront of technology themselves. Heck, they might be involved in the development of the very AI that made the content in the first place, of course they can detect it.

 

[Xzi]

It’s an interview. Zuckerberg said it, and he runs Facebook, so he speaks for Facebook. Whether he said it to Rogan or to a frog makes no difference - he said what he said, the decision was influenced by the F.B.I. giving them prior warning of “Russian disinformation” concerning specific subjects, and the story “fit the pattern”.

Right...I'm sure Zuck has plenty of information he could spin to the detriment of any politician. The fact that he chooses to air grievances against only Biden says it all.

It is trivial to filter out messages made by bots or AI. Even if it wasn’t, the government shouldn’t be involved in filtering content, that’s not the government’s job. If anything, a large tech company is *infinitely* more qualified in such filtering than the government is, they’re on the forefront of the technology themselves. Heck, they might be involved in the development of the AI that made the content in the first place.

Great, so like I said, we just need some universal common sense rules then. "No yelling fire in a crowded theater" type stuff. I propose we start with, "no promoting snake oil salesmen during a pandemic."

 

[Foxi4]

Right...I'm sure Zuck has plenty of information he could spin to the detriment of any politician. The fact that he chooses to air grievances against only Biden says it all.

I think political alignment is preventing you from seeing the bigger picture. Government influencing the proliferation of information on the Internet is bigger than Trump or Biden, any erosion of freedom of speech on the Internet erodes the Internet’s foundations.

Great, so like I said, we just need some universal common sense rules then. "No yelling fire in a crowded theater" type stuff. I propose we start with, "no promoting snake oil salesmen during a pandemic."

”Fire in a crowded theatre” is not the legal standard and the associated court decision was overruled in 1969. Do you even know where the phrase comes from? Because the irony here is palpable. The quote comes from Schenck v. United States, a court case concerning a man distributing anti-draft flyers, a form of criticism of the government which *obviously* should’ve been covered by First Amendment protections. The reason why it was subsequently overruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio is because it’s not the government’s job to silence its critics, it can only step in when the speech, I quote, "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". In other words, the government can only act when the speech breaks the law or incites in a manner that makes breaking the law imminently likely, *not* when people exercise their freedom of speech in ways the government doesn’t necessarily approve of. “Fire in a crowded theatre” is *precisely* why the government *shouldn’t* be involved - they already screwed the pooch in the past and they’re going to screw it up again, except now flyers are Internet posts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

 

[Xzi]

I think political alignment is preventing you from seeing the bigger picture. Government influence on the proliferation of information on the Internet is bigger than Trump or Biden, any erosion of freedom of speech on the Internet erodes the Internet’s foundation.

I don't see an issue in the CDC or military sending requests for certain things to be removed on public health or national security grounds. I do see an issue with the right-wing trying to force social media to open itself up to more incessant hate speech and disinformation, however.

”Fire in a crowded theatre” is not the legal standard and the associated court decision was overruled in 1969. Do you even know where the phrase comes from? Because the irony here is palpable. The quote comes from Schenck v. United States, a court case which concerned a man distributing anti-draft flyers, a form of criticism of the government which *obviously* should’ve been covered by First Amendment protections. The reason why it was subsequently overruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio is because it’s not the government’s job to silence its critics, it can only step in when the speech, I quote, "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". In other words, the government can only act when the law’s being broken, or is urged to be broken, *not* when people exercise their freedom of speech in ways the government doesn’t necessarily approve of. “Fire in a crowded theatre” is *precisely* why the government *shouldn’t* be involved - they already screwed the pooch in the past and they’re going to screw it up again, except now flyers are Internet posts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Appreciate the info, but this just amounts to us being on the same page. The government shouldn't have to step in to get dangerous misinformation removed, platforms' section 230 protections should simply be predicated on certain universal rules being included instead. Social media has been the "Wild West" of the internet so long now that people like Zuck and Musk are starting to get a god complex on top of their god complex, and their interest is in monetizing their users, not protecting them.

 

[tabzer]

Lol @ this thread. Of course this is bad practice, and not an acceptable standard of a "free nation" that supposedly protects speech.

It doesn't matter who exposes the issue first, the issue is the issue.

I don't see an issue in the CDC or military sending requests for certain things to be removed on public health or national security grounds. I do see an issue with the right-wing trying to force social media to open itself up to more incessant hate speech and disinformation, however.

Let me fix that for you.

I don't see an issue in the CDC or military sending requests for certain things to be removed on public health or national security grounds.

See. Your position is more transparent now. You don't need to connect everything you think with "the right-wing".

"It's okay if a government controls information for the sake of preserving itself." Lol, get bent.

 

[Foxi4]

I don't see an issue in the CDC or military sending requests for certain things to be removed on public health or national security grounds. I do see an issue with the right-wing trying to force social media to open itself up to more incessant hate speech and disinformation, however.

You would have a point if a number of government recommendations weren’t complete snake oil in and out of themselves. I guarantee you that hiding under a desk during a nuclear detonation is not going to save you from ionising radiation, but by all means, duck and cover.


Exhibit A: The Internet if you were in charge

You’re acting as if the government *wasn’t* a bountiful cornucopia of propaganda and misinformation when nothing could be further from the truth - they’re the last group of people I’d task with deciding what content I get to consume. I wouldn’t let them pick my pizza toppings, let alone my video recommendations. Criticism is an essential element in the pursuit of truth - yeah, not all criticism is valid, but it’s the process of discourse that allows us to arrive at a sensible conclusion. Once you replace discourse with what amounts to gospel by eliminating dissent, you don’t get to claim that speech is still free. The First Amendment holds, whether the government is acting directly or indirectly through a proxy. It should be up to the site itself to decide what content is or is not acceptable without government interference - if the CDC has a recommendation, they can post it on their site and those who want to implement it in their code of conduct can *elect* to do so out of their own free will.

Appreciate the info, but this just amounts to us being on the same page. The government shouldn't have to step in to get dangerous misinformation removed, platforms' section 230 protections should simply be predicated on certain universal rules being included instead. Social media has been the "Wild West" of the internet so long now that people like Zuck and Musk are starting to get a god complex on top of their god complex, and their interest is in monetizing their users, not protecting them.

The Internet is anything but the Wild West, it may have been one in the 90’s, but not anymore. It’s becoming progressively homogenised and centralised, contrary to its original design. Traffic is becoming more and more concentrated down to a handful of websites, the last thing you want is the government getting their grubby mittens on those hubs of activity and getting to decide what should stay up and what needs to go. We’re not agreeing on this at all - we’re diametrically opposed. I don’t agree with the notion that some magical set of “universal rules” is a good thing - who gets to decide what those rules are, and what’s the measuring stick of whether they’re good or not? No thanks, the site’s owner gets to decide what the code of conduct is. Unless the content is illegal, they decide what’s hosted on their site. If you don’t like what you see, I have good news - there’s an entire “rest of the Internet” that might have a different take on what’s acceptable, one of them is sure to be more palpable to you.

 

[tabzer]

there’s an entire “rest of the Internet”

Unfortunately that "rest of the internet" is being rendered extinct over years of government regulation. I understand the reasoning of wanting to, for example, shut down dark web hosting illegal content, but sometimes I wonder if such suppression will lead to more heinous outbursts.

But of course, we all know that "illegal content" hasn't been the primary interest of such litigation. What ends up shutting down is a lot more than that..

I'm pretty confident that the place @Xzi wants to be has been "cut out" of the internet, so such remarks could be hurtful.

 

[Foxi4]

Unfortunately that "rest of the internet" is being rendered extinct over years of government regulation. I understand the reasoning of shutting down dark web hosting illegal content, but sometimes I wonder if such suppression will lead to more heinous outbursts.

But of course, we all know that "illegal content" hasn't been the primary interest of such litigation.

I'm pretty confident that the place @Xzi wants to be has been "cut out" of the internet, so he is here for 2nd prize.

I’m told that “it’s a private company and it can do what it wants”, and then I’m told “it can’t do what it wants because the government says so”, so there’s a fair bit of mixed messaging here. On the bright side, I’m also told that “if you don’t like it, you can make your own Facebook” which should resolve this dispute automatically, but it appears that when the shoe’s on the other foot, things aren’t so simple anymore. A little bit of consistency would go a long way here, but hey.

 

[Xzi]

See. Your position is more transparent now. You don't need to connect everything you think with "the right-wing".

You're in a thread that's about two deep red states suing the Biden administration. You know that, correct?

Criticism is an essential element in the pursuit of truth - yeah, not all criticism is valid, but it’s the process of discourse that allows us to arrive at a sensible conclusion. Once you replace discourse with what amounts to gospel by eliminating dissent, you don’t get to claim that speech is still free.

On that we agree, unless it's not criticism but rather a form of wartime propaganda coming in mass quantities from a Russian troll farm. Beyond that, I should be able to point out that Trump Jr. is very likely gay, just as you should be able to point out that Hunter Biden was once a crackhead.

I don’t agree with the notion that some magical set of “universal rules” is a good thing - who gets to decide what those rules are, and what’s the measuring stick of whether they’re good or not?

I am talking boilerplate stuff, 3-5 rules, and only things that aren't already commonly covered. Examples being, "no unsubstantiated medical/scientific/military information," "no unsolicited medical/legal advice," etc. Still though I can understand the trepidation, so fair enough. I do believe, however, there should be some mechanism by which sites that host almost exclusively extremist content are held liable as publishers. Beyond the host platform simply pulling the plug out of moral/ethical concerns, anyway, because there's a lack of that going around these days.

 

[RAHelllord]

It’s not acceptable regardless of who does it as far as I’m concerned. Defending the rights enumerated in the Constitution supersedes the party line, it’s in everyone’s interest to protect them. The preliminary injunction is a step in the right direction and should protect social media sites from having to moderate content under duress, at least temporarily. They’re free to have whatever community guidelines and terms of service they want, the only thing that changes is that the government can’t tattle on users unless there’s a reasonable suspicion of a crime, which is how it should’ve always worked in the first place.

It's the governments job to regulate public life in sich a way that the public can lead their life in a safe manner. The free market has repeatedly shown that it can not self regulate in a way that is beneficial to every person of the public, but that it will only regulate itself to benefit the people at the top.
Every owner of a social media platform is interested in their personal bottom line over the well-being or safety of their users.
Both Zuckerberg and Musk have repeatedly shown to be willing to lie in public about their algorithms, the enforcement of their community guidelines, who they sell user data to, who they take money from, and who they're kowtowing to. Facebook has repeatedly boosted right-wing propaganda and misinform over years because that increased their clicks, and has ignored requests to enforce their community guidelines fairly against those. Twitter similarly has very openly started to give preferential treatment towards the right-wing and their propaganda and misinformation.

The government has plenty of authority to make calls to regulate on a multitude of subjects, for example pandemic relevant misinformation by virtue of having an entire agency staffed with medical experts in all fields. It should very much be their job that they can approach platforms that don't usually hire medical experts to give advice on current topics and whether those topics might pose a public risk or not. Expecting a community manager at Twitter to correctly identify medical misinformation is quite frankly stupid, particularly concerning a novel virus pandemic. Expecting a medical expert at the CDC to correctly identify medical misinformation is a no-brainer instead.

As long as social media platforms have a perverse incentive to make money by any means necessary they need to be regulated in such a way that the users can be reasonably safe to use the platform, and that includes things like fighting blatant misinformation. Companies do need a venue in case they feel there is government overreach, but there very much needs to be a balance in place that doesn't put all the responsibility on the end user and is quicker to react than a multi-year long litigation.