Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Masem (talk | contribs) at 18:37, 8 July 2023 (→Trial). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Missouri v. Biden (No. 3:22-CV-01213) is a United States federal case filed in the Western District of Louisiana involving the First Amendment. The states of Missouri and Louisiana filed suit against the U.S. government, led by Missouri's former attorney general and current U.S. Senator Eric Schmitt, asserting that the government's contact with social media services to request removal of misinformation was a violation of free speech and amounted to censoring conservative views and criticism of President Joe Biden's administration.

On July 4, 2023, Judge Terry A. Doughty issued a preliminary injunction against several agencies and members of the Biden administration from contacting social media services for purposes of requesting blocking of material, with exceptions for material involving illegal activity. The U.S. government has appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit.

Lawsuit

Since around 2020, Missouri Attorney General (at the time) Eric Schmitt filed numerous lawsuits against the Biden administration, with a total of 25 suits as of October 2022. Among targets of Schmitt's lawsuits included the adminstation's policies on oil & gas production, Biden's planned debt forgiveness of student loans, and mask mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to Schmitt's senate campaign website, these suits were filed to hold the Biden administration accountable, while Schmitt later said "The Attorney General's Office standing in between Missourians and a radical, overreaching government is a hallmark of federalism, and states have a vital duty to keep the federal government in check." These suits were described by the Associated Press as a means to bolster his run for U.S. Senator, which he would win in November 2022.

Missouri v. Biden was one of these high-profile lawsuits filed by Schmitt, and claimed that that President Joe Biden and his administration were "allegedly working with social media giants such as Meta, Twitter, and Youtube to censor and suppress free speech, including truthful information, related to COVID-19, election integrity, and other topics, under the guise of combating 'misinformation.'" The lawsuit was co-filed with Louisiana's attorney general Jeff Landry in May 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Additional plaintiffs were also added around October 2022, including Jim Hoft, owner of The Gateway Pundit, a right-wing fake news site, and Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, academics that co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration that questioned the government's handling of the COVID pandemic.

The plaintiffs obtained subpoenas in October and November 2022 from former and current members of the Biden administration, including Anthony Fauci, who served as Chief Medical Advisor to the President; Karine Jean-Pierre, who was the White House Press Secretary; and Kate Starbird, who served as an academic advisor to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The government attempted to block these deposition requests, but only a few of these were granted. Fauci attended a length deposition during November 2022, which Schmitt claimed proved that social media censored content based on what Fauci said during the COVID pandemic.

Around December 2022, Elon Musk bought out Twitter and significantly altered the way it operated. He also worked with independent journalists to release the "Twitter Files" starting in December 2022, a series of internal communications that Musk and the journalists assert show that parts of the U.S. government were working with Twitter to suppress free speech related to election fraud and misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic. While legal analysts believed that the steps that Twitter took to moderate content after contact by the U.S. government was not censorship, many in the Republican believed the Twitter Files proved their views were being censored. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives to hold a set of hearings in March 2023 about the Biden administration "weaponizing" social media for its purposes. Schmitt and Landry were among those who testified before the committee with information from their case's discovery, bringing their ongoing lawsuit to the forefront.

Trial

Hearings for the case were held in May 2023. Judge Doughty issued his ruling on July 4, 2023, issuing a preliminary injunction against several Biden administration officials from contacting social media services for "the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech." In his 155-page ruling, Doughty wrote: "The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition. Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed. It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature. This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech. American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country." He continued: "If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States' history. The plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the government has used its power to silence the opposition."

Government agencies covered by the injunction included the Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services, State Department, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the FBI. In addition to numerous social media companies, the injunction blocks the government from communicating with three academic programs at Stanford University and the University of Washington that study the spread of misinformation online: the Election Integrity Partnership, the Virality Project, and the Stanford Internet Observatory. The injunction allows for exceptions related to criminal activity and national threats.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed its intent to appeal to the Fifth Circuit the decision the following day. The Department of Justice sought a stay of Doughty's injunction, stating that its impact would prevent them from "working with social media companies on initiatives to prevent grave harm to the American people and our democratic processes" ahead of the 2024 elections.

Legal experts, speaking to Reuters, said that while the case has merit, Doughty's preliminary injunction will likely not stand on appeal.

References

1. ^ Lieb, David A. (October 26, 2022). "Biden Suits Get Mixed Results for Missouri Senate Candidate". Associated Press. Retrieved July 5, 2023.
2. Ballentine, Summer (September 16, 2021). "Senate hopeful flexes power of AG's office through lawsuits". Associated Press. Retrieved July 8, 2023.
3. Wicentowski, Danny (October 26, 2022). "How AG Schmitt's lawsuit is using the First Amendment to get to Dr. Fauci". KWMU. Retrieved July 8, 2023.
4. "Missouri, Louisiana AGs File Suit Against President Biden, Top Admin Officials for Allegedly Colluding with Social Media Giants to Censor and Suppress Free Speech". Eric Schmitt. May 5, 2022. Archived from the original on May 6, 2022. Retrieved July 5, 2023.
5. ^ Hancock, Jason (November 21, 2022). "Missouri AG aligns with St. Louis conspiracy theorist in social media lawsuit". Missouri Independent. Retrieved July 6, 2023.
6. Myers, Steven Lee; McCabe, David (July 4, 2023). "Federal Judge Limits Biden Officials' Contacts With Social Media Sites". The New York Times. Retrieved July 8, 2023.
7. https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article265402976.html
8. Hancock, Jason (November 22, 2022). "Missouri AG set to depose Anthony Fauci in social media lawsuit". Missouri Independent. Retrieved July 8, 2023.
9. Schemmel, Alec (December 6, 2022). "Fauci said 'I don't recall' 174 times during deposition about collusion with social media". WPDE-TV. The National Desk. Retrieved July 8, 2023.
10. Fung, Brian (June 6, 2023). "Twitter's own lawyers refute Elon Musk's claim that the 'Twitter Files' exposed US government censorship". CNN. Retrieved July 8, 2023.
11. Myers, Steven Lee (February 9, 2023). "Free Speech vs. Disinformation Comes to a Head". The New York Times. Retrieved July 8, 2023.
12. "'A mockery and a disgrace': Key takeaways from House GOP hearing on social media censorship". Yahoo News. March 30, 2023.
13. Goldstein, Adam (March 30, 2023). "U.S. House members battle over 'weaponization' of government in hearing on Missouri lawsuit". Missouri Independent. Retrieved July 8, 2023.
14. ^ Myers, Steven Lee; McCabe, David (July 4, 2023). "Federal Judge Limits Biden Officials' Contacts With Social Media Sites" – via NYTimes.com.
15. Lawler, Richard (July 4, 2023). "US judge blocks Biden officials from contacting social media sites". The Verge.
16. ^ Wamsley, Laurel; Bond, Shannon (July 5, 2023). "U.S. is barred from combating disinformation on social media. Here's what it means". NPR. Retrieved July 8, 2023.
17. McGill, Kevin; O'Brien, Matt; Swenson, Ali (July 5, 2023). "Judge's order limits government contact with social media operators, raises disinformation questions". Associated Press. Retrieved July 8, 2023.
18. Zakrzewski, Cat; Nix, Naomi; Menn, Joseph (July 8, 2023). "Social media injunction unravels plans to protect 2024 elections". Washington Post. Retrieved July 8, 2023.
19. Pierson, Brendan; Goudsward, Andrew (July 6, 2023). "Order limiting Biden officials' social media outreach on shaky legal ground, experts say". Reuters. Retrieved July 8, 2023.

• 2023 in United States case law
• United States First Amendment case law
• Internet censorship in the United States
• Biden administration controversies