In a setback for the Biden administration, a federal judge rejected the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) plea to delay a ruling that imposes restrictions on government interactions with social media companies.

The judge dismissed the White House’s argument that the order could hamper online law enforcement activities.

U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty emphasized that his previous order had already made exceptions for communications related to cyberattacks, election interference, and national security threats.

He criticized the DOJ and the Biden administration for failing to provide specific examples of how these exceptions would cause harm to the American people or undermine democratic processes.

Judge Doughty clarified that his preliminary injunction targeted a specific unlawful action: contacting social media companies to influence the removal or suppression of content containing protected free speech.

Contrary to the administration’s claims, he argued that the Republican attorneys general who initiated the lawsuit were likely to succeed in proving that federal agencies and officials had coerced or participated in suppressing social media posts critical of COVID-19 vaccines or the 2020 presidential election outcome.

In response, the lawyers representing the DOJ Biden administration filed an emergency stay of the injunction with the 5th U.S. District Court of Appeals.

They contended that Judge Doughty’s ruling was overly broad and lacked specificity.

The administration also highlighted that the court’s decision relied on a “series of public media statements” as evidence, which did not demonstrate any accompanying threats.
Meanwhile, the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana have submitted a petition opposing the Biden administration’s motion to stay the injunction.

They argue that the government’s efforts to pressure social media platforms into censoring certain viewpoints on COVID-19, elections, and political speech violate First Amendment rights.

They firmly oppose any delay in the implementation of the injunction.

Judge Doughty’s ruling, delivered last week, demanded that the Biden administration cease contacting social media companies regarding a wide range of online content, including its attempts to flag alleged misinformation.

The judge concluded that some of the government’s past communications with social media firms violated the First Amendment, comparing the government’s role during the pandemic to an Orwellian Ministry of Truth.

The lawsuit, brought by Republican attorneys general, specifically named Xavier Becerra, Dr. Hugh Auchincloss, Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, and other officials.

The social media companies involved in the case included Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, WhatsApp, TikTok, and WeChat. The lawsuit accuses the Biden administration of attempting to censor conservative viewpoints.

The ruling is seen as a victory for the Republican plaintiffs, who argued that the Biden administration exploited the COVID-19 pandemic and the threat of misinformation to suppress views that deviated from the mainstream narrative.

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry described the case as one of the most significant First Amendment cases in modern history.

The DOJ has already filed an appeal of the ruling and is seeking to lift the injunction through the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The government has maintained that it aims to address misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines to protect public health, safety, and election security.

However, critics, including free speech advocates, conservatives, and doctors promoting alternative therapies, have long opposed such actions, claiming they infringe on free speech rights.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre expressed disagreement with the court’s decision and stated that the administration would continue advocating for responsible actions to safeguard public health and national security.

While acknowledging the critical responsibility of social media platforms, she reiterated that they are private entities and must make independent choices about the information they present.

Read the original article here:
The Epoch Times