Judge limits Biden administration contact with social media firms<\/h2>\n
The ruling and order are the latest developments in a long-running lawsuit spearheaded by Republican-led states.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
![\"Joe](\"https:\/\/www.politico.com\/dims4\/default\/a75d290\/2147483647\/strip\/true\/crop\/6000x4000+0+0\/resize\/630x420!\/quality\/90\/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fba%2Fa1%2Fc6b597654d4b838c57f9f041e2e4%2Fgettyimages-1503346642.jpg\" "\\"Joe")
<\/picture><\/h5>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nThe judge\u2019s decision cites a wide range of topics that he says \u201call were suppressed\u201d on social media at the urging of administration officials, including opposition to President Joe Biden\u2019s and other officials\u2019 policies. | Chip Somodevilla\/Getty Images<\/h5>\n\n\n\n\n\nBy MATT BERG<\/span> and JOSH GERSTEIN
\nPolitico.com<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nA federal judge in Louisiana ruled Tuesday that the Biden administration likely violated the First Amendment by censoring unfavorable views on social media over the course of the coronavirus pandemic, calling the efforts \u201cOrwellian.\u201d<\/p>\n
U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty also issued a sweeping preliminary injunction<\/a> barring numerous federal officials and agencies \u2014 including Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and all employees of the Justice Department and FBI \u2014 from having any contact with social media firms for the purpose of discouraging or removing First Amendment-protected speech.<\/p>\nThe ruling and order from Doughty, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, are the latest developments in a long-running lawsuit<\/a> spearheaded by Republican-led states alleging that the administration pressured social media companies to remove posts containing purported misinformation about the coronavirus, election security and other issues.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u201cDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian \u2018Ministry of Truth,\u2019\u201d Doughty wrote in his 155-page opinion<\/a>, which was released as most federal courts were closed for the Independence Day holiday.<\/p>\nDoughty\u2019s ruling appears to take effect immediately, but it isn\u2019t a final decision on the suit and can be appealed by the Biden administration to the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Justice Department declined to comment on the ruling Tuesday. A spokesperson for the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.<\/p>\n
The judge\u2019s decision cites a wide range of topics that he says \u201call were suppressed\u201d on social media at the urging of administration officials, including opposition to Covid vaccines, masking, lockdowns and the lab-leak theory; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Joe Biden\u2019s and other officials\u2019 policies; and statements claiming that the story surrounding a laptop belonging to Biden\u2019s son Hunter Biden was true.<\/p>\n
Each topic \u201csuppressed\u201d was a conservative view, which \u201cis quite telling,\u201d Doughty declared.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech,\u201d he continued. \u201cAmerican citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country \u2026 the evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario.\u201d<\/p>\n
However, the judge also pointed to past efforts to delete or suppress content from Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an anti-vaccine activist who in April announced he is challenging Biden for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination.<\/p>\n
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry celebrated the ruling, calling it a \u201chistoric injunction\u201d against the Biden administration that prevents it \u201cfrom censoring the core political speech of ordinary Americans on social media\u201d in a statement Tuesday afternoon.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe evidence in our case is shocking and offensive,\u201d Landry added.<\/p>\n
The Justice Department has argued in the case that federal officials engaging with social media companies were simply encouraging them to police their platforms and that the officials\u2019 speech in doing so was protected by the First Amendment. Federal officials have denied engaging in threats or coercion to force the companies to de-platform certain speech or speakers, although top officials sometimes denounced the companies in stark terms.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey\u2019re killing people,\u201d Biden said in July 2021<\/a>, after being asked about the presence of anti-vaccine content on Facebook and other sites. \u201cThe only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated, and they\u2019re killing people.\u201d<\/p>\nDoughty has been overseeing the suit the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana filed last year claiming that the administration\u2019s pressure on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube was so intense that it amounted to censorship. In a rebuke to Doughty in January, the 5th Circuit blocked efforts<\/a> to force former White House press secretary Jen Psaki to testify in the case.<\/p>\n
<\/picture><\/h5>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n![\"Joe](\"https:\/\/www.politico.com\/dims4\/default\/a75d290\/2147483647\/strip\/true\/crop\/6000x4000+0+0\/resize\/630x420!\/quality\/90\/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fba%2Fa1%2Fc6b597654d4b838c57f9f041e2e4%2Fgettyimages-1503346642.jpg "\\"Joe")
<\/picture><\/h5>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nThe judge\u2019s decision cites a wide range of topics that he says \u201call were suppressed\u201d on social media at the urging of administration officials, including opposition to President Joe Biden\u2019s and other officials\u2019 policies. | Chip Somodevilla\/Getty Images<\/h5>\n\n\n\n\n\nBy MATT BERG<\/span> and JOSH GERSTEIN
\nPolitico.com<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nA federal judge in Louisiana ruled Tuesday that the Biden administration likely violated the First Amendment by censoring unfavorable views on social media over the course of the coronavirus pandemic, calling the efforts \u201cOrwellian.\u201d<\/p>\n
U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty also issued a sweeping preliminary injunction<\/a> barring numerous federal officials and agencies \u2014 including Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and all employees of the Justice Department and FBI \u2014 from having any contact with social media firms for the purpose of discouraging or removing First Amendment-protected speech.<\/p>\nThe ruling and order from Doughty, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, are the latest developments in a long-running lawsuit<\/a> spearheaded by Republican-led states alleging that the administration pressured social media companies to remove posts containing purported misinformation about the coronavirus, election security and other issues.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\u201cDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian \u2018Ministry of Truth,\u2019\u201d Doughty wrote in his 155-page opinion<\/a>, which was released as most federal courts were closed for the Independence Day holiday.<\/p>\nDoughty\u2019s ruling appears to take effect immediately, but it isn\u2019t a final decision on the suit and can be appealed by the Biden administration to the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Justice Department declined to comment on the ruling Tuesday. A spokesperson for the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.<\/p>\n
The judge\u2019s decision cites a wide range of topics that he says \u201call were suppressed\u201d on social media at the urging of administration officials, including opposition to Covid vaccines, masking, lockdowns and the lab-leak theory; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Joe Biden\u2019s and other officials\u2019 policies; and statements claiming that the story surrounding a laptop belonging to Biden\u2019s son Hunter Biden was true.<\/p>\n
Each topic \u201csuppressed\u201d was a conservative view, which \u201cis quite telling,\u201d Doughty declared.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech,\u201d he continued. \u201cAmerican citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country \u2026 the evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario.\u201d<\/p>\n
However, the judge also pointed to past efforts to delete or suppress content from Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an anti-vaccine activist who in April announced he is challenging Biden for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination.<\/p>\n
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry celebrated the ruling, calling it a \u201chistoric injunction\u201d against the Biden administration that prevents it \u201cfrom censoring the core political speech of ordinary Americans on social media\u201d in a statement Tuesday afternoon.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe evidence in our case is shocking and offensive,\u201d Landry added.<\/p>\n
The Justice Department has argued in the case that federal officials engaging with social media companies were simply encouraging them to police their platforms and that the officials\u2019 speech in doing so was protected by the First Amendment. Federal officials have denied engaging in threats or coercion to force the companies to de-platform certain speech or speakers, although top officials sometimes denounced the companies in stark terms.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey\u2019re killing people,\u201d Biden said in July 2021<\/a>, after being asked about the presence of anti-vaccine content on Facebook and other sites. \u201cThe only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated, and they\u2019re killing people.\u201d<\/p>\nDoughty has been overseeing the suit the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana filed last year claiming that the administration\u2019s pressure on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube was so intense that it amounted to censorship. In a rebuke to Doughty in January, the 5th Circuit blocked efforts<\/a> to force former White House press secretary Jen Psaki to testify in the case.<\/p>\n
By MATT BERG<\/span> and JOSH GERSTEIN A federal judge in Louisiana ruled Tuesday that the Biden administration likely violated the First Amendment by censoring unfavorable views on social media over the course of the coronavirus pandemic, calling the efforts \u201cOrwellian.\u201d<\/p>\n U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty also issued a sweeping preliminary injunction<\/a> barring numerous federal officials and agencies \u2014 including Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and all employees of the Justice Department and FBI \u2014 from having any contact with social media firms for the purpose of discouraging or removing First Amendment-protected speech.<\/p>\n The ruling and order from Doughty, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, are the latest developments in a long-running lawsuit<\/a> spearheaded by Republican-led states alleging that the administration pressured social media companies to remove posts containing purported misinformation about the coronavirus, election security and other issues.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n \u201cDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian \u2018Ministry of Truth,\u2019\u201d Doughty wrote in his 155-page opinion<\/a>, which was released as most federal courts were closed for the Independence Day holiday.<\/p>\n Doughty\u2019s ruling appears to take effect immediately, but it isn\u2019t a final decision on the suit and can be appealed by the Biden administration to the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Justice Department declined to comment on the ruling Tuesday. A spokesperson for the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.<\/p>\n The judge\u2019s decision cites a wide range of topics that he says \u201call were suppressed\u201d on social media at the urging of administration officials, including opposition to Covid vaccines, masking, lockdowns and the lab-leak theory; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Joe Biden\u2019s and other officials\u2019 policies; and statements claiming that the story surrounding a laptop belonging to Biden\u2019s son Hunter Biden was true.<\/p>\n Each topic \u201csuppressed\u201d was a conservative view, which \u201cis quite telling,\u201d Doughty declared.<\/p>\n \u201cThis targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech,\u201d he continued. \u201cAmerican citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country \u2026 the evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario.\u201d<\/p>\n However, the judge also pointed to past efforts to delete or suppress content from Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an anti-vaccine activist who in April announced he is challenging Biden for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination.<\/p>\n Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry celebrated the ruling, calling it a \u201chistoric injunction\u201d against the Biden administration that prevents it \u201cfrom censoring the core political speech of ordinary Americans on social media\u201d in a statement Tuesday afternoon.<\/p>\n \u201cThe evidence in our case is shocking and offensive,\u201d Landry added.<\/p>\n The Justice Department has argued in the case that federal officials engaging with social media companies were simply encouraging them to police their platforms and that the officials\u2019 speech in doing so was protected by the First Amendment. Federal officials have denied engaging in threats or coercion to force the companies to de-platform certain speech or speakers, although top officials sometimes denounced the companies in stark terms.<\/p>\n \u201cThey\u2019re killing people,\u201d Biden said in July 2021<\/a>, after being asked about the presence of anti-vaccine content on Facebook and other sites. \u201cThe only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated, and they\u2019re killing people.\u201d<\/p>\n Doughty has been overseeing the suit the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana filed last year claiming that the administration\u2019s pressure on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube was so intense that it amounted to censorship. In a rebuke to Doughty in January, the 5th Circuit blocked efforts<\/a> to force former White House press secretary Jen Psaki to testify in the case.<\/p>\n
\nPolitico.com<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n