July 4th injunction bars feds from encouraging social media to delete content

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/07/04/july-4-injunction-bars-various-federal-departments-from-encouraging-social-media-platforms-to-delete-content/

by hirundo • 3 years ago

66 28 3 years ago

reason.com

multjoy• 3 years ago

That's a rollercoaster of a filing...

ren_engineer• 3 years ago

link to actual document - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.18...

unethical_ban• 3 years ago

If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States' history.

Whatever your opinion on the wisdom or tyranny of government trying to control "misinformation" on private social media platforms, the above line shows the absolute ignorance of the judge.

Alien and Sedition Acts, Abrams v. United States come to mind.

remarkEon3• 3 years ago

Trying to steelman what he's maybe saying, it could be a question of scale. An unelected Federal executive "urging" (lol) private companies to manage content on their platforms in some defined manner has the potential for massive impact. I think that's the difference because there hasn't been a technology able to do that in the past. At least the Alien and Sedition Acts and the Espionage Act were acts of Congress, however misguided.

ethanbond4• 3 years ago

FBI couldn’t walk into NYTimes and ask them not to publish something? Of course they could, and I’m sure they have many times and I’m sure many times NYTimes told them “go fuck yourself, see you in court if you want.”

gsibble6• 3 years ago

I don't think you can downplay how huge the scale of this was. It's a 155 page ruling destroying the federal government's actions.

ethanbond4• 3 years ago

Yeah the Red Lion v FCC citation seems a bit tenuous IMO, and what the entire thing relies on. The point about Red Lion was that there is limited spectrum and it’s controlled by the government, so it must impose neutrality or else the government has de facto control over speech. The problem was never that private broadcasters could choose to say what they wanted to say, it was that the government could choose which broadcasters could say whatever the broadcasters could say.

Not analogous to the internet at all?

Kon-Peki2• 3 years ago

It’s Judge Doughty in the Western District of Louisiana. Republicans go judge shopping specifically to get him, and he gives them what they want.

On appeal, his rulings don’t hold up too well…

gsibble6• 3 years ago

Got an example?

Kon-Peki2• 3 years ago

The Covid-19 vaccine requirement for healthcare workers. Doughty issued the nationwide injunction, the Supreme Court overruled.

1MachineElf• 3 years ago

From part of the injunction:

  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following actions are NOT prohibited by this Preliminary Injunction:

  1. informing social-media companies of postings involving criminal activity or criminal conspiracies;

  2. contacting and/or notifying social-media companies of national security threats, extortion, or other threats posted on its platform;

etc.

I worry about that 2nd one creating a loophole. A lot of nefarious activity can be loosely justified as "for national security reasons." Why wouldn't the 1st set of actions be sufficient? Are there national security threats that aren't already criminalized?

viraptor• 3 years ago

You can organise a group in a very legal way, with a very nice and clear description, which is an obvious front for something illegal (allegedly).

I suspect the goal there is being able to stop/disrupt those groups without going all the way through the legal system.

111111IIIIIII• 3 years ago

I suspect the goal there is being able to stop/disrupt those groups without going all the way through the legal system.

In other words: a loophole

vharuck• 3 years ago

A news agency may legally publish leaked classified documents. In the past, this has even applied to documents that could identify active agents in other countries. Though it's not criminal, social media may choose to not be a part of publishing that info after the government tells them what it contains.

gsibble6• 3 years ago

Choice quotes from the ruling:

https://innovationnation.blog/p/this-ruling-is-huge-155-page...

calgarymicro• 3 years ago

However, various emails show Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits through evidence that the motivation of the NIAID Defendants was a “take down” of protected free speech. Dr. Francis Collins, in an email to Dr. Fauci told Fauci there needed to be a “quick and devastating take down” of the GBD—the result was exactly that.

What an utterly horrendous misrepresentation of this email by the judge, who seemingly edited it to fit his narrative. Here's the full sentence[0]:

there needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of its premises. I don't see anything like that online yet - is it underway?

So clearly referring to 'takedown' in the sense of a published rebuttal, not an instruction to social media companies to remove content. Notice how he ommitted the word 'published' from his quote. This does not inspire confidence.

[0]https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/12/18/23/51969841-10324873...

ETH_start2• 3 years ago

Terrible. I fully oppose the anti-GBD side, but deceit like this repugnant.

exabrial• 3 years ago

I'm fine with this. It's a similar principal to separation of church and state. Reading the exact text has a provision for criminal activity.

July 4th injunction bars feds from encouraging social media to delete content

Related Stories