Authorities in the US may be restricted in attempts to tackle what they see as false or misleading claims online regarding the Covid-19 pandemic and other issues on foot of an injunction granted by a federal judge.
The move forms part of an important case that could determine what should happen when the right of free speech under the first amendment of the US Constitution clashes with potential disinformation posted on social media.
On Tuesday a federal judge in Louisiana, in a preliminary injunction, ordered a number of government agencies as well as several top Biden administration officials not to 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”.
Organisations affected by the injunctions include the US health and justice departments, the FBI and a number of top officials such as homeland security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and Jen Easterly, who heads the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency. The injunction also covers White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre.
Olaf Scholz finally delivers on dynamic promise as firing of Germany’s finance chief blows up his coalition
Beijing parents keep an eye on blind date corner
10 takeaways from the night Donald Trump marched back to the White House
Germany’s coalition stands on a knife edge after Olaf Scholz fires finance minister
The White House said on Tuesday it was reviewing the order made by Judge Terry Doughty, who said there should be some exceptions to cover communications between government officials and the companies including to warn about risks to national security and criminal activity.
The judge, a Trump administration appointee, cited “substantial evidence” of a far-reaching censorship campaign.
He wrote that the “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’,” he said.
The judge said those taking the case were “likely to succeed” on the merits of their first amendment free speech claim against the defendants and that the preliminary injunction should issue immediately.
The injunction is not the final word in the case. However, it marks a significant development in the litigation, which has been brought by the Republican attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri.
The injunction on Tuesday is likely to be appealed and the case could ultimately makes its way to the US supreme court to determine where, or if, limits should be placed on content posted online.
The case forms part of broader arguments by Republicans in the US that the government has been working with social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube to censor its critics and take down conservative viewpoints.
The Republican attorneys general maintain that the Biden administration had put pressure on tech companies – including the threat of new legislation – to remove social media content that disagreed with its Covid-19 strategy.
The US government has disputed the arguments made by Republicans and contended it had to use its position to promote accurate information at a time of a deadly pandemic and attacks from overseas on elections.
The court injunction announced on Tuesday could affect moves by the Biden administration to approach tech companies to take action in relation to material considered harmful.
Louisiana attorney general Jeff Landry said the injunction prevents the administration “from censoring the core political speech of ordinary Americans” on social media.
“The evidence in our case is shocking and offensive with senior federal officials deciding that they could dictate what Americans can and cannot say on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other platforms about Covid-19, elections, criticism of the government, and more.”
