New Orleans, LA — In a significant ruling, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a prior decision by a lower court that places restrictions on several federal government officials concerning their interactions with social media companies. The decision stems from the case of Missouri v. Biden, which originated in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
In Missouri v. Biden, the court found that the White House, Surgeon General, CDC, and FBI had exerted influence on social media platforms, compelling them to suppress certain viewpoints related to topics like Covid-19 health policies, the pandemic’s origins, election security, and Hunter Biden. The court argued that these actions amounted to violations of the First Amendment.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey celebrated the decision, emphasizing that the White House had effectively pressured social media companies to censor speech, violating Americans’ First Amendment rights.
In a 74-page opinion, the three-judge panel at the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that government officials had likely coerced or significantly encouraged social media platforms to moderate content. This, the panel concluded, effectively made these decisions “state actions” that infringed upon the First Amendment.
The judges on the panel—Edith Brown Clement, Don Willett, and Jennifer Walker Elrod—were appointed by Republican presidents.
This ruling represents a crucial First Amendment dispute, addressing the boundaries of government oversight over content on major social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and what is referred to as ‘X’ (formerly Twitter).
https://twitter.com/AGAndrewBailey/status/1700523524383973562?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1700523532017348938%7Ctwgr%5E02b43ec3a9a2238e789344734ed2faadf652ca95%7Ctwcon%5Es2_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftrendingpoliticsnews.com%2Ffederal-court-upholds-landmark-free-speech-case-banning-us-government-from-big-tech-censorship-knab%2F
While the appeals panel largely aligned with the findings of the federal judge who had previously ruled against the government, they did narrow certain aspects of the judge’s injunction. They imposed less extensive restrictions on how the government can engage with online platforms and applied these limitations to a smaller group of federal agencies and officials.
In July, a district judge issued a preliminary injunction preventing defendants, including President Joe Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, and former chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci, from communicating with social media companies regarding content they deemed misinformation.
This legal action was led by the Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, who argued that the Biden administration had facilitated a widespread ‘federal censorship enterprise’ to combat what they saw as misinformation and disinformation on social media.
The Court noted that the White House’s threats were both “explicit and subtle” pic.twitter.com/lVa4UlIVtk
— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) September 9, 2023
The government, however, contended that the injunction would hinder its ability to combat foreign influence campaigns, prosecute crimes, ensure national security, and provide accurate information on critical public concerns.
Among the plaintiffs were epidemiologists who had authored the Great Barrington Declaration, a critical open letter from October 2020 regarding Covid lockdown policies and school closures. They alleged that the government had launched a campaign to discredit and suppress their declaration.
In response to the government’s efforts, social media platforms began removing content and deplatforming users they hadn’t previously targeted. This included information shared by influential vaccine critics known as the ‘disinformation dozen,’ whom the White House had identified as problematic.
The court’s opinion highlighted that these platforms not only took down flagged content but also adjusted their moderation policies in accordance with the government officials’ wishes.
