Settlement Limits Government Influence on Social Media

Republican attorneys general are celebrating a significant First Amendment victory following a lawsuit against the Biden administration. This stems from settlements reached by Louisiana and Missouri that restrict federal agencies from pressuring social media platforms regarding their content moderation practices.

Liz Murrill, the Attorney General of Louisiana, described the settlement as “historic,” pointing out that it establishes a ten-year consent decree. The agreement prevents various government bodies from pressuring social media companies to take action against specific content. “If we can set this precedent, we can demonstrate that this kind of behavior is wrong,” she stated during a phone interview. She likened the government’s actions to something out of an Orwellian scenario, expressing gratitude that the administration recognized the impropriety of their actions.

The original lawsuit, which gained attention in 2022, involved Missouri, Louisiana, and several plaintiffs. It alleged that leaders from both the Biden and Trump administrations improperly influenced social media firms to censor conservative perspectives on topics like COVID-19, election integrity, and issues surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop.

Under the settlement, agencies like the Surgeon General’s office and the CDC are barred from using threats or coercion against social media companies regarding the removal of protected speech for the next decade. Their ability to dictate content moderation practices has also been curtailed.

Senator Eric Schmidt, a Republican from Missouri, highlighted that this marks the first significant restriction on a federal censorship entity, declaring that “the deep state has just been checked.” Murrill, alongside current U.S. Attorney General John Sauer, contributed to the case while they served as state attorneys general. Murrill recalled discussions about the line between coercive actions and legitimate government speech.

“It was evident to me that the government’s approach went beyond acceptable limits by intentionally suppressing protected speech and pressuring companies to comply with the White House’s wishes,” she noted, referring to the scary precedence set by these actions.

The allegations suggest federal officials pressured companies like YouTube, Twitter (now X), and Facebook to suppress information, arguing that such actions amounted to unconstitutional censorship. Republican frustration regarding social media censorship surged in 2020, particularly when Twitter restricted content and Facebook limited access to a controversial New York Post report about the Biden family and Ukraine.

Findings from the ongoing lawsuit have indicated that FBI officials from the Trump administration contacted social media companies to warn them about a potential Russian operation aimed at interfering with the 2020 elections shortly before the New York Post article was published. The companies claimed this warning influenced their decision to block the article.

Former President Trump commented that censorship efforts in October 2020 were extreme, impacting his chances during the election. He asserted that social media was operating like an arm of the Democratic National Committee, and he took steps to revoke security clearances of intelligence officials who questioned the integrity of the New York Post report.

At one point, a federal judge indicated that the government’s actions resembled an “Orwellian” censorship model. One Biden administration official allegedly communicated with Facebook about “considering options,” while another urged Twitter to act swiftly in censoring content.

The case saw various developments, including an injunction against the Biden administration’s practices, which was later narrowed and ultimately vacated by the Supreme Court on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing. Ultimately, the recent agreement marks a crucial step in addressing the dynamics of government influence over social media.

The settlement permits government officials to communicate with social media platforms about content moderation as long as these interactions do not involve threats of regulatory or legal repercussions. While the federal government does not admit to wrongdoing, they maintain their right to address criminal activities or national security issues on these platforms.

Katherine Hanaway, the Attorney General of Missouri, expressed her approval of the agreement, affirming that Missouri will not permit political figures to control speech.

John Vecchione, an attorney with the New Civil Liberties Union who represented plaintiffs in the case, remarked on the long journey to this settlement. “This case began with suspicion, which evolved into fact, leading to Congressional hearings and a definitive order to conclude government censorship of citizens’ social media interactions,” he said, emphasizing the strong defense of free speech advocated by the plaintiffs throughout the lawsuit.