U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty | YouTube
Some critics of last week's preliminary injunction inMissouri v. Biden, which bars federal officials from encouraging social media platforms to suppress constitutionally protected speech, reject the premise that such contacts amount to government-directed censorship. Other critics, especially researchers who focus on "disinformation" and hate speech, pretty much concede that point but see nothing troubling about it. From their perspective, the problem is that complying with the First Amendment means tolerating inaccurate, misleading, and hateful speech that endangers public health, democracy, and social harmony.
The day after Terry Doughty, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, issued the injunction,The New York Times gave voice to those concerns in a piece headlined "Disinformation Researchers Fret About Fallout From Judge's Order." According to the subhead, those researchers "said a restriction on government interaction with social media companies could impede efforts to curb false claims about vaccines and voter fraud."
That much is true by definition. Doughty's injunction generally prohibits various agencies and officials from "meeting with social-media companies," "specifically flagging content or posts," or otherwise "urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing" the "removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech." The injunction also bars the defendants from "threatening, pressuring, or coercing social-media companies" toward that end and from "urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing" them to "change their guidelines for removing, deleting, suppressing, or reducing content containing protected free speech."
The injunction includes some potentially sweeping exceptions. Among other things, it does not apply to "postings involving criminal activity or criminal conspiracies"; "national security threats, extortion, or other threats"; posts that "threaten the public safety or security of the United States"; "foreign attempts to influence elections"; posts "intending to mislead voters about voting requirements and procedures"; or "criminal efforts to suppress voting," "provide illegal campaign contributions," or launch "cyber-attacks against election infrastructure."
Story continues
Some of these categories are commodious enough to encompass constitutionally protected speech by American citizens. In particular, "national security" is a broad, ill-defined excuse that might apply, for example, to information derived from classified sources or even to criticism of U.S. surveillance practices. The goal of resisting "foreign attempts to influence elections" can easily result in misidentification of Americans as Russian agents or mischaracterization of accurate reporting as foreign "disinformation."
But insofar as Doughty's order has bite, which it presumably does as it relates to COVID-19 "misinformation" and speech embracing Donald Trump's stolen-election fantasy, those anxious researchers surely are right that it "could impede efforts to curb false claims about vaccines and voter fraud." Notably, these critics take it for granted that preventing the government from demanding removal of disfavored content will have a substantial impact on the speech that platforms allow.
"Most misinformation or disinformation that violates social platforms' policies is flagged by researchers, nonprofits, or people and software at the platforms themselves," theTimes notes. But "academics and anti-disinformation organizations often complained that platforms were unresponsive to their concerns." The paper reinforces that point with a quote from Viktorya Vilk, director for digital safety and free expression (!) at PEN America: "Platforms are very good at ignoring civil society organizations and our requests for help or requests for information or escalation of individual cases. They are less comfortable ignoring the government."
The reason social media companies are "less comfortable ignoring the government," of course, is that it exercises coercive power over them and could use that power to punish them for failing to censor speech it considers dangerous. In the 155-page opinion laying out the reasoning behind his injunction, Doughty notes implicit threats against recalcitrant platforms, including anti-trust actions, new regulations, and increased civil liability for content posted by users.
Doughty cites myriad communications that show administration officials expected platforms to promptly comply with the government's censorship "requests," which they typically did, and repeatedly complained when companies were less than fully cooperative. He emphasizes how keen Facebook et al. were to assuage President Joe Biden's anger at moderation practices that he said were "killing people."
The major platforms eagerly joined what Surgeon General Vivek Murthy described as a "whole-of-society" effort to combat the "urgent threat to public health" posed by "health misinformation," which he said might include "legal and regulatory measures." It beggars belief to suppose that the threat of such measures played no role in the platforms' responses to the administration's demands.
As the fretful researchers quoted by the Times see it, that is all as it should be. "Several disinformation researchers worried that the ruling could give cover for social media platforms, some of which have alreadyscaled back their efforts to curb misinformation, to be even less vigilant before the 2024 election," the paper reports. Again, that concern assumes that the interactions covered by Doughty's injunction resulted in stricter rules and more aggressive enforcement, meaning less speech than otherwise would have been allowed.
The Times paraphrases Bond Benton, an associate communication professor at Montclair State University, who worries that Doughty's ruling "carried a message that misinformation qualifies as speech and its removal as the suppression of speech." As usual, the Times glides over disputes about what qualifies as "misinformation," which according to the Biden administration includes truthful content that it considers misleading or unhelpful. But since even a demonstrably false assertion "qualifies as speech" under the First Amendment, the "message" that troubles Benton is an accurate statement of constitutional law. That does not mean platforms cannot decide for themselves what content they are willing to host, but it does mean the government should not try to dictate such decisions.
The concerns expressed by Doughty's critics go beyond health-related and election-related "misinformation," and they go beyond the soundness of this particular ruling. In an interview with the Times, Imran Ahmed, chief executive of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, complained that the U.S. takes "a 'particularly fangless' approach to dangerous content compared with places like Australia and the European Union." Those comparisons are telling.
Australia's Online Safety Actempowers regulators to order removal of "illegal and restricted content," including images and speech classified as "cyberbullying" and "content that is inappropriate for children, such as high impact violence and nudity." Internet service providers that do not comply with complaint-triggered takedown orders within 24 hours are subject to civil penalties. The government also can order ISPs to block access to "material depicting, promoting, inciting or instructing in abhorrent violent conduct" for up to three months, after which the order can be renewed indefinitely.
Freedom House notes that Australia's law includes "no requirement for the eSafety Commissioner to give reasons for removal notices and provides no opportunity for users to respond to complaints." The organization adds that "civil society groups, tech companies, and other commentators have raised concerns about the law, including its speedy takedown requirements and its potential disproportionate effect on marginalized groups, such as sex workers, sex educators, LGBT+ people, and artists."
Australia's scheme plainly restricts or prohibits speech that would be constitutionally protected in the United States. Likewise the European Union's Digital Services Act, which covers "illegal content," a category that is defined broadly to include anything that runs afoul of a member nation's speech restrictions. E.U. countries such as France and Germany prohibit several types of speech that are covered by the First Amendment, including Holocaust denial, disparagement of minority groups, and promotion of racist ideologies.
These are the models that Ahmed thinks the U.S. should be following. "It's bananas that you can't show a nipple on the Super Bowl but Facebook can still broadcast Nazi propaganda, empower stalkers and harassers, undermine public health and facilitate extremism in the United States," he told the Times. "This court decision further exacerbates that feeling of impunity social media companies operate under, despite the fact that they are the primary vector for hate and disinformation in society."
Critics like Ahmed, in short, do not merely object to Doughty's legal analysis; they have a beef with the First Amendment itself, which allows Americans to express all sorts of potentially objectionable opinions. If you value that freedom, you probably consider it a virtue of the American legal system. But if your priority is eliminating "hate and disinformation," the First Amendment is, at best, an inconvenient obstacle.
The post Some Critics of the Ruling Against Biden's Censorship by Proxy Have a Beef With the 1st Amendment Itself appeared first on Reason.com.
Read more here:
Some Critics of the Ruling Against Biden's Censorship by Proxy Have a Beef With the 1st Amendment Itself - Yahoo News
- NRA case shows the Supreme Court must stop informal censorship - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Microsoft faces bipartisan criticism for alleged censorship on Bing in China - The Register - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Is Fighting Misinformation Censorship? The Supreme Court Will Decide. - Reply All | Gimlet - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- The censorship industry and it's connection to Israel - JNS.org - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- How to improve Chinese TV? Better censorship, says top tellie-maker - The Register - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Up First briefing: Putin wins Russian election; SCOTUS censorship case - NPR - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Elon Musk calls X number one source of news in the worldand also a hardcore, player versus player platform - Fortune - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Asking is not censorship: No First Amendment bar for government to talk to publishers - New York Daily News - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- X-Men: The Animated Series was defined by its censors - Polygon - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Justice Jackson lambasted for 'concern' 1st Amendment could 'hamstring government' in COVID censorship hearing - Fox News - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- The Beginning of the End for the Censorship-Industrial Complex? - National Review - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- RFK Jr.: Government shouldnt have role in social media moderation - NewsNation Now - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Self-Pollinating Narrator of 'Wishtree' Called 'Indoctrination,' Virginia District Group Read Canceled | Censorship News - News Letter Journal - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- This Country Can't Afford A SCOTUS Weak On Internet Censorship - The Federalist - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Banning TikTok is just the first step to censorship - Point Park Globe - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- SCOTUS Ponders Whether Biden Administration Coerced Social Media Platforms To Censor Speech - Reason - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- In Virginia, Censors Attempt to Axe 'Wishtree' - Publishers Weekly - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Elon Musk Says Moderation Is a Propaganda Word for Censorship About Offensive X Posts - Rolling Stone - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Supreme Court Makes A Mockery Of Free Speech - The Federalist - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- No matter how you view TikTok, banning the platform would be censorship - The Daily Orange - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- China must look beyond censorship and economic power to win hearts and minds - South China Morning Post - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- 'The View' Producers Forced To Censor Ana Navarro's Expletive As She Talks About Biden - Daily Caller - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- How China Censors Critics of the Economy - The New York Times - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- A Startup Allegedly 'Hacked the World.' Then Came the Censorshipand Now the Backlash - WIRED - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- Negative Takes on China's Economy Are Disappearing From the Internet - The Wall Street Journal - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- Let The Government Censor Away Through Agents It Controls, Say Cabal Of A.G.s To U.S. Supreme Court Wirepoints - Wirepoints - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- 14 Massachusetts colleges land on restrictive free speech list: Censorship and terrible policies - Boston Herald - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- The Association of Appin Training Centers is waging a global censorship campaign to stop you from reading these ... - MuckRock - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- Norway owns a part of Putin's propaganda and censorship machine - The Independent Barents Observer - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- Censorship? That's just obscene! | Opinion | register-herald.com - Beckley Register-Herald - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- Censorship in the West is the same as Mao's China, says Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei - Sky News - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- South Korean government reported to announce plans for smoking scene censorship from K-dramas and films at the ... - Sportskeeda - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- Prime Video's 'Expats' Was Filmed in Hong Kongbut You Can't Watch It There - TIME - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- ADF to 8th Circuit: Govt can't censor pro-life views - ADF Media - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- Fox News Forced To Censor Trump As He Rants About Gavin Newsom And Michelle Obama - Towleroad - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- NYC teachers will exchange notes on how to get around censorship to teach kids about the genocide in Gaza - New York Post - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- The GOP Has a Plan for Online Safety. It Involves Censoring LGBTQ Content. - The New Republic - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- Opinion: Need help finding a good book? Try one your 9th grader isn't allowed to read - Los Angeles Times - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- 'Gateway to Censorship': Journalist Bodies Express Concern Over Proposed Broadcasting Services Bill - The Wire - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- The Dangerous Pursuit of Journalism in Russia: A Harrowing Reality - Medriva - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- Global censorship campaign raises alarms - Freedom of the Press Foundation - January 21st, 2024 [January 21st, 2024]
- Texas Library Censorship Attempt Struck Down By 5th Circuit - Above the Law - January 21st, 2024 [January 21st, 2024]
- Attacks, arrests, threats, censorship: The high risks of reporting the Israel-Gaza war - Committee to Protect Journalists - January 21st, 2024 [January 21st, 2024]
- South Sudan's Battle with Censorship: Removing Hateful News Articles - The Organization for World Peace - January 21st, 2024 [January 21st, 2024]
- Intimidation leading to censorship in Wisconsin school libraries - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - January 21st, 2024 [January 21st, 2024]
- Censorship over Palestine: Holocaust Survivor Decries Repression After Talks in Germany Are Canceled - Democracy Now! - January 21st, 2024 [January 21st, 2024]
- As Legacy Media Continues in Decline, It Espouses Censorship More - Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence - January 21st, 2024 [January 21st, 2024]
- Trump Nomination: Pundit Expects Censorship, Calls for Riots - The Dallas Express - January 21st, 2024 [January 21st, 2024]
- Data Overwhelmingly Supports Libraries and Library Workers: Book Censorship News, January 5, 2024 - Book Riot - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Blame adults these days for censorship - Times Higher Education - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- CNN admits it runs all Gaza coverage through bureau monitored by Israeli military censor - Salon - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Does your Pa. school policy open the door to censorship? - phillyBurbs.com - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Iran's internet price rises, and so does the fear of greater censorship - TechRadar - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Report highlights censorship and repression of Palestine solidarity across Europe - Morning Star Online - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- 2024, the year that four billion go the polls - Index on Censorship - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Government Internet censorship was imposed 196 times last year - 9to5Mac - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- In the shadows of self-censorship: The impact of the Cyber Security Act on Bangladeshs LGBTQ+ movement - Global Voices - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Jeffrey Wright Says Studio Hired a Replacement Actor to Dub Him After He Refused to Censor the N-Word in a Film: Nah. Thats Not Happening - Variety - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Comedian and musician Tom Smothers dies at 86: A victim of government and corporate censorship in the late 1960s - WSWS - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Polish pavilion selection at Venice Biennale gets political as rejected artist cries censorship - Art Newspaper - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Wartime censorship is necessary, but must be responsible - editorial - The Jerusalem Post - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Jeffrey Wright Says a Replacement Actor Dubbed His Lines When He Refused to Censor the N-Word - PEOPLE - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Judicial Watch Sues Biden Censorship Agency for Records Targeting Judicial Watch and Its President Tom Fitton - Judicial Watch - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Jeffrey Wright Says He Refused To Censor The N-Word In Ride With The Devil & Walked Away From Dubbing Film - Deadline - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Academic Bias and Censorship Are Huge Problems, and We Can Prove It - National Review - January 4th, 2024 [January 4th, 2024]
- Laws banning semi-automatic weapons and library censorship to take effect in Illinois - Toronto Star - January 4th, 2024 [January 4th, 2024]
- Here Are The States Urging SCOTUS To Allow Biden Admin To Coordinate With Big Tech To Censor Online Speech - Daily Caller - January 4th, 2024 [January 4th, 2024]
- China Tries To Censor Data About Nearly 1 Billion People in Poverty - Newsweek - January 4th, 2024 [January 4th, 2024]
- Laws banning semi-automatic weapons and library censorship to take effect in Illinois - Firstpost - January 4th, 2024 [January 4th, 2024]
- Iowa School District removes over 70 books without following proper review procedures - Blogging Censorship - January 4th, 2024 [January 4th, 2024]
- Chinese election interference tests Taiwans capability to defend freedom of speech - Index on Censorship - January 4th, 2024 [January 4th, 2024]
- Laws banning semi-automatic weapons and library censorship to take effect in Illinois - Index-Journal - January 4th, 2024 [January 4th, 2024]
- Censorship and the case for institutional literacy - The Hill - December 20th, 2023 [December 20th, 2023]
- Release Of Aquaman And The Lost Kingdoms Dubbed Versions DELAYED Due To Censor Board - Times Now - December 20th, 2023 [December 20th, 2023]
- Gary Simmons on Censorship, Minstrelsy, and the Scourge of Art Fairs - Interview - December 20th, 2023 [December 20th, 2023]
- Jeff Crouere: Censorship is un-American; free speech is the answer - The Franklin Sun - December 20th, 2023 [December 20th, 2023]
- Mother Russia. Who is the face of Russian online censorship, scourge of Russian rappers and Gen-Z icon - . - December 20th, 2023 [December 20th, 2023]
- Why Middle East scholars are self-censoring in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war - NPR - December 20th, 2023 [December 20th, 2023]
- "Keeping Your Mouth Shut: Spiraling Self-Censorship in the United States" - Reason - December 20th, 2023 [December 20th, 2023]
- EU TARGETS Elon Musk's Twitter for MORE CENSORSHIP Over 'HAMAS PROPAGANDA': Rising Reacts - The Hill - December 20th, 2023 [December 20th, 2023]