In a recent development, 23 Democrat-led states, led by California, have come forward to support President Biden’s effort to overturn a “sweeping” decision that banned the government from coordinating with social media companies to censor Americans. The decision, made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in the case of Missouri v. Biden, was deemed to have violated the First Amendment.
The case originated from a lawsuit brought by Republicans in Missouri and Louisiana, accusing high-ranking government officials of colluding with social media giants to censor speech on various topics, including Hunter Biden’s laptop, COVID-19 origins, and the effectiveness of face masks. The 5th Circuit ruled that the administration officials had “likely violated” the First Amendment and issued a preliminary injunction against the government’s communication with big tech platforms regarding user content.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, along with his colleagues from other blue states, has argued that upholding the decision could have a chilling effect on government agencies’ ability to engage with the private sector to protect the public online. Bonta emphasized the significance of social media as a source of news and information nationwide and expressed concerns that the decision could hinder efforts to address threats to public health and safety.
However, Judge Terry A. Doughty, in a July 4 order, stated that if the allegations made by the Republican attorneys general were true, the case could potentially be regarded as the most massive attack on free speech in the history of the United States. Doughty criticized the federal government, particularly the named defendants, for allegedly ignoring the First Amendment’s right to free speech in their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation.
Bonta and his colleagues argued that maintaining open lines of communication between the government and social media companies is mutually beneficial, furthers the public interest, and aligns with the principles of the First Amendment. They highlighted the importance of collaboration in addressing concerns such as extremist violence, child safety, and consumer protection.
The Democrat-led states also asserted that the 5th Circuit’s decision failed to consider the government’s potential contribution to social media platforms in combating consumer fraud schemes and protecting children from online harms.
This development has sparked a significant debate on the balance between free speech and the regulation of social media platforms. Critics argue that the decision could set a dangerous precedent, while supporters believe it is necessary to address the spread of misinformation and protect public safety.
As the legal battle continues, it remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will respond to Biden’s effort to overturn the decision. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the future of free speech and the regulation of social media in the United States.
Brianna Herlihy is a politics writer for Digital, providing the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews, and more political content.
