5th Circuit Court’s Ruling: Gov’t Orchestrated Stifling of Free Speech on Social Media is Not Acceptable

Edited by: TJVNews.com

In a significant decision that raises questions about the intersection of government involvement and free speech on social media platforms, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday that several Biden administration officials likely breached the First Amendment by pressuring social media companies to moderate or remove content they considered problematic, according to published reports.  The court’s decision, rendered on September 8, addressed concerns about government overreach and the boundaries of free expression in the digital age.

The lawsuit, initiated by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri, along with various social media users, accused Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter of engaging in censorship under the influence of government officials and threats of heightened regulatory enforcement. The censored content ranged from questioning anti-COVID-19 measures like masks and vaccine mandates to allegations of election fraud.

Read more about the decision rendered by the 5th Circuit Court here in the complete lawsuit:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-30445-CV0.pdf

The 5th Circuit Court’s ruling, while acknowledging the government’s interest in engaging with social media companies on issues like misinformation and election interference, emphasized that these interests should not be pursued to the extent that they infringe upon free speech rights. The court asserted that the government cannot engage in viewpoint suppression and must respect the First Amendment’s protections.

The court said that the White House, Surgeon General, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the FBI “likely coerced or significantly encouraged social media platforms to moderate content” in violation of the First Amendment, as was reported by the Epoch Times.

“It is true that the officials have an interest in engaging with social media companies, including on issues such as misinformation and election interference,” the three-judge panel said in a 74-page ruling (pdf) on Sept. 8, according to published reports.

“But the government is not permitted to advance these interests to the extent that it engages in viewpoint suppression,” they added.

The court identified specific actions taken by government officials that it deemed coercive and violative of the First Amendment. These actions included making “express threats” and “inflammatory accusations” against social media platforms, such as accusing them of “poisoning the public” and “killing people.” Officials followed these statements with warnings of “fundamental reforms” and increased enforcement actions, creating an implicit “or else” scenario.

“Then, they followed their statements with threats of ‘fundamental reforms’ like regulatory changes and increased enforcement actions that would ensure the platforms were ‘held accountable’. But, beyond express threats, there was always an unspoken ‘or else,’” it added.

The court also said the officials encouraged social media platforms to moderate content by “exercising active, meaningful control over those decisions,” particularly concerning the platforms’ moderation policies, according to published reports.

According to the ruling, the FBI “regularly met with the platforms, shared ‘strategic information,’ frequently alerted the social media companies to misinformation spreading on their platforms, and monitored their content moderation policies.”

“But, the FBI went beyond that—they urged the platforms to take down content. Turning to the Second Circuit’s four-factor test, we find that those requests were coercive,” it added.

It was also reported that the judges emphasized that the government cannot supervise a platform’s content moderation decisions and cannot impose “legal, regulatory, or economic consequences” if they refuse to comply with a given request. “Social media platforms’ content-moderation decisions must be theirs and theirs alone,” the court asserted.

Biden administration Likely Violates First Amendment. Read more here:    

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/08/politics/biden-administration-social-media-lawsuit/index.html

Additionally, the court noted that government officials actively influenced social media content moderation decisions by sharing “strategic information,” frequently alerting platforms to misinformation, and monitoring their content moderation policies. The FBI, in particular, was singled out for urging platforms to take down specific content, according to the Epoch Times report. The court applied the Second Circuit’s four-factor test to assess the coerciveness of these requests and found them to be coercive.

Importantly, the court underscored that social media platforms’ content moderation decisions must remain under their exclusive control. The government cannot interfere with these decisions or impose “legal, regulatory, or economic consequences” if platforms refuse to comply with its requests, as was noted in published reports. In essence, the court emphasized that content moderation decisions must be made by social media companies alone, free from external influence or pressure.

While the 5th Circuit Court’s ruling recognized the potential breach of the First Amendment, it also took steps to narrow the scope of the initial injunction issued by a Louisiana judge. The court noted that not all forms of government encouragement to take down content necessarily cross a constitutional line, as stated reports on the subject.  It asserted that an injunction should not prohibit legal conduct, and in this case, many provisions were considered overbroad and duplicative.

Furthermore, the court removed certain agencies, including the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, and the State Department, from the order, indicating a more focused approach to government involvement in content moderation.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a key figure in the lawsuit, hailed the ruling as a significant step in preserving the First Amendment. He argued that this lawsuit and the court’s decision marked a crucial moment in establishing boundaries between the government and technology companies, ensuring that citizens’ fundamental freedoms are protected.

“The first brick was laid in the wall of separation between tech and state on July 4. Today’s ruling is yet another brick,” he said in a statement. “Missouri will continue to lead the way in the fight to defend our most fundamental freedoms.”

Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri also said in a statement on X, (formerly Twitter) that disturbing evidence had surfaced indicating that the Biden administration was actively coercing every major social media platform in America to ban speech that the White House did not like, which was in clear violation of the first amendment. He viewed it as an attack not only on free speech and expression but an viewed it as an assault on dissenting viewpoints.

 

&nbs

With Biden struggling in the polls and Republican presidential candidates making great strides with voters, it has become abundantly clear that the administration is attempting to control the content of information that social media users imbibe on a daily basis.

Hawley also told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that parents in his state had their posts taken down on social media sites at the direction of the government when they questioned Dr. Anthony Fauci’s Covid warnings about wearing masks.  He concluded that the Biden administration was the “most anti-first amendment administration in history.”

Moreover, Hawley and Hannity discussed the fact that prior to the 2020 presidential election, the FBI conducted a series of meetings with “Big Tech” Silicon Valley companies to allegedly “warn” them that “misinformation” about the Hunter Biden laptop story that would likely appear on their platforms and instructed them to remove the posts that contradict the White House narrative on the laptop affair.

Other politically conservative pundits have charged that the powers that be in the government have been ramping up efforts to silence and shadow ban their posts on social media in order to suppress their perspectives on the issues. While the algorithmic technique of shadow banning oppositional forces on social media by the government is not a new concept, in the last several years, social media watchers and expert commentators have also piped up against the clearly premeditated and deftly orchestrated crusade by the “woke, progressive and far-left wing” mob to quash any dissent by preventing conservative and right-wing voices from being presented and heard on a panoply of platforms, both large and small.

In July 2021, it was reported that during an appearance on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures,” Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) accused the Biden administration of violating the First Amendment in its efforts to combat false claims about COVID-19 vaccines, as was reported by Forbes.com.  Cruz’s comments reflected growing concerns among conservatives about government involvement in addressing vaccine misinformation and its implications for free speech and constitutional rights.

During the interview, Cruz asserted that the White House’s campaign to crack down on vaccine misinformation is a clear sign of its willingness to trample on free speech and the Constitution. Forbes also reported that he argued that the government’s actions, which include increased public pressure on social media platforms and the “flagging” of problematic posts, amount to government censorship. According to Cruz, the Biden administration is using social media companies as a tool to stifle free expression.

Cruz’s remarks came at a time when the Biden administration had been actively addressing the spread of “misinformation” related to COVID-19 vaccines. The administration had been working closely with social media platforms to identify and combat false claims about the vaccines, aiming to increase vaccine uptake and curb the spread of the virus.

One of Cruz’s notable points was his suggestion that the now former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki should be on former President Donald Trump’s payroll due to the alleged strengthening of Trump’s lawsuit against big tech. Trump has repeatedly accused social media platforms of censorship, particularly regarding his removal from these platforms following the events of January 6, 2021, the Forbes report said.

Cruz’s comments reflect a broader narrative among some conservatives who view the Biden administration’s actions as an overreach of government power into the realm of free speech and private enterprise. Forbes also reported that they argue that the government should not be in the position of pressuring social media companies to moderate or remove certain content, as it could set a dangerous precedent for government control over online discourse.

The issue of misinformation and its consequences in the age of social media has been a subject of intense debate. Striking the right balance between protecting free speech and safeguarding public welfare remains a complex challenge.

Cruz’s criticism of the Biden administration’s approach underscored the ongoing tension between government intervention and individual liberties in the digital era. As technology and communication methods continue to evolve, questions about how to address misinformation while respecting constitutional rights will likely remain at the forefront of public discourse. As the debate continues, policymakers, legal experts, and the public will need to grapple with the complex and evolving landscape of free speech in the digital age.

Additionally, evidence has also surfaced that the Biden administration and those pulling the strings in the background in terms of deciding who is slated to be silenced on social media due to their desire to express dissenting views and who has the right of free speech  is often determined with direct collaboration of non-White House allies.

Those organizational leaders or those who carry a formidable degree of cachet with their followers who march lock step with the “deep state” views that are held by the Biden administration are often given preference on who the White House consults on such matters. One of those leaders is Anti-Defamation League CEO and former Obama White House adviser, Jonathan Greenblatt.

A source familiar with Greenblatt’s background said that he was suggested for the top spot at the ADL by Obama to help carry out the former president’s nefarious left wing agenda while heading a discrimination watchdog group that is supposed to remain neutral on political issues.

Observers have noted that on repeated occasions Greenblatt has voiced his animus towards political conservatives by refusing to meet with them. Rather, he spends his time railing against former President Trump’s nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court and holding the banner high to preserve abortion rights in the Roe v Wade case, to offer just a few examples.

As such, prominent personalities of his ilk have played advisory roles in government decisions on what steps to take in order to effectively pressure social media outlets to keep their platforms free of the kind of voices that they have clearly have palpable contempt for.

In summations, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling raises important questions about the role of government in regulating speech on social media platforms. The decision makes it quite clear that social media platforms must be responsible for their own content moderation decisions and cannot be coerced or pressured into silencing certain voices.

As debates about free speech and online content moderation continue to evolve, this ruling sets a precedent for how courts may navigate the delicate balance between government interests and individual rights in the digital age. It reinforces the idea that while addressing the challenges of the digital era is essential, it must not come at the expense of fundamental constitutional protections.

Editor’s Note:

Case in point: The Jewish Voice (jewishvoice.com) social media platforms have been one of many who have been targeted by the dark forces of the “Deep State” whose shadowy cast of characters that pull the levers in the background include the likes of Greenblatt and others of his genre.

The time is long overdue to stop obsequiously pandering to those who seek to obliterate our cherished democratic principles as outlined in our constitution and in our bill of rights. Those who seek to silence us today will silence others tomorrow and in the years to come. If we do not boldly respond to this blatant and ruthless assault on our freedoms then we will pay the severe consequences of living in a police state, where expression of views that are not in vogue will be deemed a criminal act and will be accompanied by the kind of draconian penalties that hitherto, we never thought possible.

For the record, the targeted persecution of the Jewish Voice on social media and the efforts to silence through shadow banning have been taking place for several years.  While out business has seen exponential growth and the numbers of people attempting to access our cutting edge news portals have seen a significant rise, people are being blocked from following us on all social media platforms and through the behind the scenes efforts of our cognitive adversaries, the number of people following us has seen a disturbing reduction.  While reasons for this odd phenomenon have never been offered, it is crystal clear that the Jewish Voice is being subjected to shadow banning due to the fact that we refused to jump aboard a twisted ideological agenda that is incessantly being promulgated by the current administration and the “woke” warriors behind them.

They have made it known that they have absolutely no compunction about utilizing every under handed modality conceivable to silence those who dare to raise their collective voice in angst and outrage as we express opposition to their agenda.  Rather, we have taken the intrepid position of extolling the political, cultural and religious truth to our followers as we boldly forge a path of the highest degree of journalistic integrity that is reflected in our impressive variety of investigative pieces and our wide selection of insightful feature stories.

Now is the time to act!! The Jewish Voice is calling upon Senator Hawley, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Rep. Jim Jordan, Rep Marjorie Taylor-Greene and many other elected officials on both sides of the aisle who possess the intestinal fortitude to courageously stand up to the dark forces that grip this nation in order to protect our cherished democratic principles and our first amendment right of free speech. And as equally important is protecting our ability to safely engage in the public square as we participate in the global conversation pertaining to issues that define our lives as a society and as individuals.

Contact your local elected officials and outline your grievances. Make your views known about the relentless persecution of the Jewish Voice on social media to your congressional leaders and state your case in a cogent and definitive manner.

Just remember that today it is the Jewish Voice and others that are being shamelessly gagged but tomorrow it can be you, your neighbors, friends and family.