Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

News

Judge Denies DOJ’s Request for Stay in Social Media Censorship Case

A federal judge on July 10 denied the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) request to stay a ruling that places limits on government communications with social media firms, rejecting the White House’s argument that such an order could put a damper on law enforcement activity online.

U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty wrote that his order last week had created exceptions for communications for cyberattacks, election interference, and national security threats. The DOJ and Biden administration, he wrote, didn’t provide any specific examples that “would provide grave harm to the American people or our democratic processes.”

“Although this Preliminary Injunction involves numerous agencies, it is not as broad as it appears,” Mr. Doughty wrote on July 10. “It only prohibits something the Defendants have no legal right to do—contacting 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 posted on social-media platforms.”

The judge further wrote that Republican attorneys general who brought the suit are most likely going to prevail in proving that federal agencies and officials “significantly encouraged,” “coerced,” or “jointly participated” in allegedly suppressing social media posts that included information critical of COVID-19 vaccines or questioned the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

In response, lawyers for the Biden administration’s DOJ filed an emergency stay of the injunction at the 5th U.S. District Court of Appeals. They argued that Mr. Doughty’s ruling was too vague and broad.

“The district court identified no evidence suggesting that a threat accompanied any request for the removal of content. Indeed, the order denying the stay—presumably highlighting the ostensibly strongest evidence—referred to ‘a series of public media statements,’” the administration wrote on July 10.

It came as the attorneys general for Missouri and Louisiana have submitted a petition to oppose the Biden administration’s motion to stay an injunction against its efforts allowing it to contact social media firms about a range of online content, including its efforts to flag so-called misinformation.

Over the weekend, the two states filed (pdf) a memorandum of opposition to the administration’s motion, coming days after a federal judge partially granted an injunction that blocks various Biden administration officials and government agencies such as the Justice Department and the FBI from working with big tech firms to censor posts on social media. It came in response to a lawsuit filed by the attorneys general, who accused the White House and various federal agencies of putting pressure on social media firms to take down posts or suspend accounts.

“Evidence in this case overwhelmingly shows that the way the Government supposedly ‘prevent[s] grave harm to the American people and our democratic processes’ is to pressure and induce social-media platforms to censor disfavored viewpoints on COVID-19, elections, and other core political speech,” they wrote on July 9.

“In the end, their position is fundamentally defiant toward the Court’s judgment. It demonstrates that the Government will continue violating First Amendment rights by censoring core political speech on social media as soon as it can get away with it. The motion to stay should be denied.”

18 Comments
  • tony says:

    THE ONLY REASON WHY BIDEN WANTS A STAY IS SO THEY CAN KEEP CONTROLLING WHAT PEOPLE SEE AND HEAR ON SOCIAL MEDIA..remember the run up for the election is starting soon..remember the 3030 election with everything being censored

  • Grant says:

    Mr. Doughty wrote on July 10. “It only prohibits something the Defendants have no legal right to do—contacting 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 posted on social-media platforms.”

    In response, lawyers for the Biden administration’s DOJ filed an emergency stay of the injunction at the 5th U.S. District Court of Appeals. They argued that Mr. Doughty’s ruling was too vague and broad.

    Me: It doesn’t sound too vague to me. Keep the fu out of undermining our 1st amendment rights government or you will forever be enemy #1 to half the country.

  • US Marine says:

    Facebook censored the crap out of me and banned several of my friends when they refused to be silenced concerning the election and the joke shot. I was suspended and my account slowed down to where I don’t get daily updates in my news feed. They are still at it even thought the judge ruled against them.

  • steve says:

    F J B

  • Trending Today

    News

    The mayor of one of the largest cities in the U.S. announced in a Friday op-ed that he is leaving the Democratic Party and...

    News

    Et tu, PAW Patrol? Much to the distress of parents across the United States, it appears that even the PAW Patrol universe has gone...

    News

    Authorities in Indiana have expanded a search for Kevin Mason, a homicide suspect who was accidentally released from jail last week. More than 100...

    News

    After U.S. Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and his wife were indicted for a bribery scheme in which they allegedly traded the senator’s power and...

    >