Judge rules Joe Biden administration trampled on free speech on social media
In explosive ruling, FBI and government agencies are barred from policing online content, after the ‘worst assault on free speech in US history’.
A US judge has issued an explosive ruling that accuses the Biden administration of “blatantly” breaching Americans’ First Amendment free speech rights, ordering a dramatic curtailment of communications between government and the social media giants.
A district court in Louisiana ordered the FBI, the White House, the department of health, and a slew of other agencies to cease all communication with 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.”
“If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” wrote Judge Terry Doughty in a 155 page judgement that observers expect the Biden administration to appeal.
A group of public health academics and the states of Missouri and Louisiana brought the case last year, claiming various arms of the US government had pressured Facebook and Twitter to censor or shadow ban posts about Covid19.
Posts of the plaintiffs that were removed included claims Covid19 came from a lab in Wuhan, that masks were ineffective, that lockdowns were excessively costly, that vaccine mandates were wrong, that Covid19 vaccines didn’t stop transmission and led to health risks for young people.
“The right to free speech is not a member of any political party and does not hold any political ideology. It is the purpose of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolisation of the market, whether it be by government itself or private licensee,” the judge wrote.
He said the plaintiffs “have presented substantial evidence in support of their claims that they were the victims of a far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign.”
“[T]he evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario … During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterised by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’”
A spokesman for the Justice Department declined to comment.
John Vecchione, senior litigation counsel at the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a pro bono Washington law firm that brought the case on behalf of academics who said they had been censored, said the ruling was “unprecedented”.
“It’s pretty darn good; I’ve never seen anything like it, I expect the government to appeal it, but I think this thing will hold up given how detailed and specific the judge’s findings have been,” he told The Australian.
“The judge has crafted the injunction so the government can still do its national security stuff, such as alerting social media platforms to criminal speech”.
The decision follows a series of legal setbacks for the Biden administration by the Supreme Court and lower courts, including last week’s striking down of race-based affirmative action at universities and the administration’s policy to cancel some student loans.
In January last year the Supreme Court overturned the Biden administration’s order for all employers of large businesses to be vaccinated against Covid19. In August last year a Florida court quashed a separate mandate to wear masks on planes and trains.
“The judge obviously set this up to come out on the 4th July, he could be out BBQing but he’s still done it,” Mr Vecchione said, noting July 4th is a federal holiday in the US.
The verdict comes as governments in Australia and the UK introduce legislation to boost government’s power to compel social media companies to censor viewpoints deemed misinformation and disinformation