REAL TALK

NEWS POLITICS

Federal Judge Blocks Biden Administration from Interfering with Free Speech on Social Media

ByAlki David

Jul 5, 2023

In a significant ruling, a federal judge has issued a temporary injunction prohibiting Biden administration officials from engaging with social media platforms in an attempt to manipulate or suppress “protected speech.” The decision, originating from a lawsuit filed by former Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, marks a victory for advocates of free speech.

Judge Terry A. Doughty, a Trump-appointed judge serving in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, has ordered several federal agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to refrain from pressuring or inducing social media companies to remove or reduce content containing protected free speech. However, the ruling does not prevent these agencies from notifying platforms about crimes, national security threats, or foreign attempts to influence elections.

The litigation, initiated last year, alleges collusion between the federal government and social media giants such as Twitter and Facebook to stifle freedom of speech. Judge Doughty, while not issuing a final ruling, acknowledged the plaintiffs’ evidence of a concerted effort by defendants, spanning from the White House to federal agencies, to suppress speech based on its content.

In response, government attorneys argued that federal officials lack the authority to dictate the removal of content from social media platforms. They accused GOP attorneys general of distorting communications with companies regarding public health disinformation and election conspiracies.

Former Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, who was elected to the U.S. Senate in November, expressed jubilation on Twitter, hailing the injunction as a significant triumph for the First Amendment on this Independence Day. The case initially involved Missouri and Louisiana, but over the past year, additional plaintiffs who encountered issues with social media companies for spreading misinformation online were included.

While this ruling is temporary, it highlights the ongoing debate surrounding the role of social media platforms in moderating content and the potential infringement on free speech. The final outcome of this lawsuit will undoubtedly have far-reaching implications for the future of online discourse and the protection of constitutional rights.

By Alki David

Alki David — Publisher, Media Architect, SIN Network Creator - live, direct-to-public communication, media infrastructure, accountability journalism, and independent distribution. Born in Lagos, Nigeria; educated in the United Kingdom and Switzerland; attended the Royal College of Art. Early internet broadcaster — participated in real-time public coverage during the 1997 Mars landing era using experimental online transmission from Beverly Hills. Founder of FilmOn, one of the earliest global internet television networks offering live and on-demand broadcasting outside legacy gatekeepers. Publisher of SHOCKYA — reporting since 2010 on systemic corruption inside the entertainment business and its expansion into law, finance, and regulation. Creator of the SIN Network (ShockYA Integrated Network), a federated media and civic-information infrastructure spanning investigative journalism, live TV, documentary, and court-record reporting. Lived and worked for over 40 years inside global media hubs including Malibu, Beverly Hills, London, Hong Kong and Gstaad. Early encounter with Julian Assange during the first Hologram USA operations proved a formative turning point — exposing the realities of lawfare, information suppression, and concentrated media power. Principal complainant and driving force behind what court filings describe as the largest consolidated media–legal accountability action on record, now before the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court. Relocated to Antigua & Barbuda and entered sustained legal, civic, and informational confrontation over media power, safeguarding, and accountability at Commonwealth scale.