Key figures in the Joe Biden administration have been banned from contacting social media companies. US District Court Judge Terry Doughty ruled on Tuesday, July 4, that government agencies and officials have demonstrated a willingness to coordinate suppression and engage in censorship with Silicon Valley, and that this is a direct violation of the First Amendment. The judge was responding to lawsuits brought by Republican officials claiming the White House acted to block free speech throughout the COVID pandemic and beyond.
“During … a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth,’” the judge wrote. His preliminary injunction includes White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, Department of Justice employees, and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, among others. The decision will remain in place until either the proceedings are completed or a higher court overturns Doughty’s ruling. Watchers are already speculating that this could go all the way to the Supreme Court.
Censorship on Demand?
The case was brought to court by Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) – while he was serving as Missouri’s attorney general – and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry. They alleged the White House was abusing Americans’ First Amendment protections, specifically in relation to COVID information and the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, and more generally regarding potentially damaging stories to the administration.
One instance cited directly by Judge Doughty in his 155-page initial ruling concerns White House Director of Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty’s communications with Twitter over a parody account depicting Finnegan Biden (daughter of Hunter Biden). On February 6, 2021, Flaherty sent a message to the social media giant, saying, “Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately. Please remove this account immediately.” The account was removed in less than one hour.
Doughty wrote:
“This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech. American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country … the evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario.”
He continued, writing that the plaintiffs “have produced evidence of a massive effort by Defendants, from the White House to federal agencies, to suppress speech based on its content.”
(Photo Illustration by Rafael Henrique/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Dissension in the Ranks?
Legacy media was quick to summon an array of experts to weigh in on the merits of the case and the ruling. A misinformation specialist out of MIT, David Rand, was quoted by The New York Times as saying, “his understanding was that the government had at most a limited impact on how social media platforms engaged with misinformation.” The Times further wrote, “The defendants, the social media companies and experts who study disinformation have argued that there is no evidence of a systematic effort by the government to censor individuals in violation of the First Amendment.”
However, the above-referenced social media companies likely did not include Elon Musk’s Twitter, which last year released a trove of documents – collectively titled The Twitter Files – showing precisely the activities alleged by the plaintiffs. In fact, some of these documents were included in the lawsuit’s arguments.
An unnamed White House official told The Independent the DOJ is reviewing the injunction and will evaluate its options. The statement continues:
“This Administration has promoted responsible actions to protect public health, safety, and security when confronted by challenges like a deadly pandemic and foreign attacks on our elections … Our consistent view remains that social media platforms have a critical responsibility to take account of the effects their platforms are having on the American people, but make independent choices about the information they present.”
A Question of Pressure
The government does have legitimate reasons to interact with social media companies – such as criminal activity or national security threats. Indeed, Judge Doughty granted an exception for such instances in his ruling. However, the evidence seems to demonstrate that coordination between Silicon Valley and the Biden administration goes far beyond such topics. Multiple accounts have been banned, suspended, or suppressed for posting information about the coronavirus pandemic that has since been proven accurate. Content that queries or even parodies the Biden clan has been removed. The question that remains is whether such censorship actions were taken because the companies’ policies dictated such, or whether they felt undue pressure to acquiesce to the government’s notably heavy-handed “suggestions”?
