Lawsuit Alleges State Dept’s Role in Funding Censorship Enterprises Targeting Conservative Media

Edited by: Fern Sidman

A bombshell lawsuit filed on Wednesday accuses the State Department, under the Biden administration, of violating First Amendment rights by channeling taxpayer dollars to fund private censorship firms, according to a recently published report in the New York Post.  The lawsuit, jointly filed by such media groups as The Federalist and the Daily Wire, along with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and the New Civil Liberties Alliance, alleges that the State Department has engaged in selective favoritism toward left-wing media outlets, suppressing conservative news sites, the Post report added.

The crux of the legal complaint revolves around the federal agency’s purported use of “censorship enterprises” funded by taxpayer dollars, which the lawsuit claims unfairly target the American press, particularly those leaning to the right, according to the Post report. The Biden administration is accused of unlawfully supporting these enterprises that label conservative news organizations as “purveyors of ‘disinformation.'”

The lawsuit specifically highlights two “fact-checking” censorship enterprises, NewsGuard and the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), which allegedly have ties with major social media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and TikTok, as well as influential advertisers like Dell Technologies, ExxonMobil, and Nike, the report in the Post said. The complaint contends that these enterprises, promoted by the government, have contributed to stifling conservative news sites by limiting their advertising revenue and reducing the circulation of their reporting.

The filing refers to GDI’s December 2022 “Disinformation Risk Assessment,” which ranked news outlets on a risk scale. Notably, right-leaning organizations such as The Federalist, the Daily Wire, Newsmax, the American Conservative, Reason Magazine, and even the New York Post were deemed among the “riskiest” sites, as was noted by the Post in their report. In contrast, reputedly left-leaning news groups such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and BuzzFeed were labeled as “least risky.”

NewsGuard is accused of compiling lists characterizing American press outlets as “unreliable” and generating blacklists, ostensibly categorizing news outlets as risky or unreliable. The Post reported that the lawsuit asserts that these actions aim to discredit and demonetize disfavored press while directing resources and audiences toward news organizations with favored viewpoints.

In response to the lawsuit, a spokesman for NewsGuard emphasized that The Post ranked highly on its list of reliable news organizations. The Post also reported that he also contradicted the GDI’s assessment of Reason Magazine, claiming that Reason received “perfect 100/100 scores from NewsGuard.”

The lawsuit also claims that the Biden administration, under the pretext of fact-checking and combating disinformation, has utilized taxpayer funds to support censorship enterprises such as NewsGuard and GDI. The Post report indicated that NewsGuard is accused of selling a censorship tool called “Misinformation Fingerprints” to various companies, including Microsoft, Bing Chat, and GIPHY, using approximately $750,000 in taxpayer dollars.

A spokesman for NewsGuard has refuted the claims made in the lawsuit, stating that the group’s relationship with the State Department has been inaccurately portrayed. According to the Post report, the spokesman emphasized that NewsGuard does not offer technology that censors or blocks content but provides assessments of sites, allowing clients to decide where to place ads or which content to amplify. NewsGuard maintains that clients make independent decisions based on the information provided.

A spokesperson for the State Department declined to comment on the pending litigation. The lawsuit points out that the Biden administration has its own censorship technologies within the Global Engagement Center (GEC). However, the legal complaint argues that there is no constitutional authority to censor speech or the press, and the First Amendment expressly prohibits such actions, the Post report said.

The lawsuit also alleges that censorship efforts are facilitated through agreements between government officials and social media platforms, involving regular meetings, phone calls, and information exchanges. As was indicated in the Post report, the Federalist and the Daily Wire claim that leaked communications, such as the 2021 release of the “Facebook Papers” by whistleblower Frances Haugen, provide evidence of the State Department’s involvement in censorship initiatives targeting conservative voices.

Mollie Hemingway, the editor-in-chief of The Federalist, emphasized the lawsuit’s significance during an appearance on Fox’s “The Ingraham Angle.” As was noted in the Post report, Hemingway stated that the suit reveals the State Department’s engagement in setting up, funding, marketing, and promoting private companies involved in speech censorship. She claimed that these companies privilege left-wing media outlets, assist advertisers in reaching specific audiences, and unconstitutionally target conservative voices.

The lawsuit, filed with the New Civil Liberties Alliance, contends that the State Department’s actions are ultra vires, operating beyond its legal authority, and engaging in an unconstitutional censorship scheme, the Post report said.  The legal action challenges the government’s overreach into domestic affairs through initiatives like the Global Engagement Center (GEC), asserting that the State Department lacks the authority to operate domestically in such a manner.

The Daily Wire, in a public statement, accused the Biden administration of illegally funding organizations with the explicit goal of financially crippling media outlets that do not align with the government’s ideological agenda, the Post reported. The news site expressed concern about the administration’s alleged efforts to control the media landscape through funding initiatives favoring left-wing outlets.

While the legal complaint raises serious concerns about the State Department’s censorship initiatives, it also acknowledges that the full extent of the censorship scheme orchestrated by the Global Engagement Center is currently unknown, as was reported in the Post. This underscores the complexity of the case and the need for a thorough examination of the government’s actions.