A federal judge has ruled that the Biden administration likely violated the First Amendment by meeting with tech companies about social media censorship. The ruling, which was issued by Judge Terry A. Doughty of Louisiana, is a major victory for free speech advocates who have argued that the administration's actions were an attempt to suppress speech critical of the government's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.
🔊 Click play button to listen
 |
| President Biden getting his COVID-19 shot. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images/File) |
The ruling is based on a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri, who alleged that the Biden administration had coerced or "significantly encouraged" tech companies to suppress speech on topics such as the COVID-19 vaccine and election integrity. The lawsuit also alleged that the administration had threatened to withhold federal funding from tech companies that refused to comply with its demands.
In his ruling, Judge Doughty found that the administration's actions were likely to be found unconstitutional because they were not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. The judge also found that the administration had not shown that its actions were necessary to protect public health or national security.
The Biden administration has said that it will appeal the ruling. However, the ruling is a major setback for the administration's efforts to censor speech on social media. It is also a victory for free speech advocates who have argued that the government should not be able to dictate what people can say online.
The ruling is also significant because it comes at a time when the Biden administration is facing increasing scrutiny over its handling of free speech issues. In recent months, the administration has been criticized for its efforts to crack down on misinformation on social media, as well as its decision to revoke the press credentials of several journalists.
The ruling is a reminder that the First Amendment protects the right to free speech, even when the government disagrees with what is being said. It is also a reminder that the government cannot use its power to silence critics or suppress dissent.
Here are some additional details about the ruling:
- The ruling was issued on September 8, 2023, by Judge Terry A. Doughty of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
- The lawsuit was filed by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri, Jeff Landry and Eric Schmitt, respectively.
- The lawsuit alleged that the Biden administration had violated the First Amendment by meeting with tech companies to discuss how to censor speech about COVID-19 and other topics.
- The lawsuit also alleged that the administration had threatened to withhold federal funding from tech companies that refused to comply with its demands.
- The Biden administration has said that it will appeal the ruling.
The implications of the ruling:
- The ruling is a major victory for free speech advocates who have argued that the Biden administration's efforts to censor speech on social media are unconstitutional.
- The ruling could have a significant impact on the Biden administration's ability to regulate social media companies.
- The ruling could also discourage other governments from trying to censor speech on social media.
The future of free speech on social media:
The ruling is a significant victory for free speech advocates, but it is too early to say what the long-term implications will be. The Biden administration has said that it will appeal the ruling, and it is possible that the ruling could be overturned by a higher court.
However, the ruling is a reminder that the First Amendment protects the right to free speech, even when the government disagrees with what is being said. It is also a reminder that the government cannot use its power to silence critics or suppress dissent.
The future of free speech on social media is uncertain, but the ruling is a positive step in the fight to protect free speech online.
.jpg)
0 Comments