Social media and government contacts enjoined

A federal judge has just limited the contacts between multiple Biden administration employees and social media companies for censorship purposes. The only such contacts the judge continued to allow were in criminal or national security contexts.

The social media block

Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued his seven-page injunction yesterday.

Separately he issued a 155-page Memorandum Ruling on the preliminary injunction request by the plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden.

That’s the Great Social Media Censorship case, that accuses several companies of being State actors. It also, more to the point, accuses several Cabinet Secretaries, deputy or undersecretaries, et al., and three-letter agency heads, supervisors, and senior agents, of regularly directing this State action in their communications, on-platform and off-, with social media company moderational and other administrative staff.

The seven-page order lists not only specific Cabinet departments and three-letter agencies, but also specific Secretaries, deputy or undersecretaries, agency heads, and other Department and agency staff. Furthermore the order enjoins nearly all the conduct that various Twitter Files threads have documented. This includes attempts to pressure social media companies into changing their guidelines and content standards.

The judge did not enjoin any such contacts with regard to criminal activity, national security threats, or “vote suppression.” That last includes deliberate attempts to mislead voters about voting procedures, polling place hours, and the like.

On March 20, Judge Doughty denied a government motion to dismiss the case. He then held a hearing on May 26 for the preliminary injunction that came down yesterday.

Karine Jean-Pierre bears mention in the injunction order, along with Elvis Chan, Laura Dehmlow, and other Twitter Files players. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) also bears mention.

Reasons for acting

In addition to permitting continued contacts in criminal, national security, or vote-suppression contexts, Judge Doughty also denied certifying Missouri v. Biden as a class action.

Judge Doughty led his Memorandum Ruling with an epigram traditionally attributed to the great French enlightenment philosopher, Voltaire. The quote,

I may disapprove of what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it.

is more properly attributable to Evelyn Beatrice Hall, author of The Friends of Voltaire. The judge moved on to call the censorship regime “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.” His review of the allegations in the case read like a summary of The Twitter Files, but could also refer to censorship policies still in effect, or only recently revoked, on other social platforms besides Twitter. But this footnote might be the most devastating to the defense case:

At oral argument, the Defendants conceded that they did not dispute the validity or authenticity of the evidence presented.

The Memorandum specifically lists the grounds on which Judge Doughty granted the injunction (in part):

1. Plaintiffs’ likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their First Amendment claims,
2. “A substantial threat of irreparable injury” if the behaviors continue,
3. The outweighing, by this “substantial threat,” of any threat of irreparable injury to the defendants if the behavior stops, and
4. The specificity of the injunction for which the plaintiffs ask.

The court denied the class-action certifications because the classes the Plaintiffs proposed could include almost every computer user in the world.

Sources

Reportage on this story, other than direct analysis of the order and memorandum ruling, came from the following sources:

• The Epoch Times,
• The Connecticut Central,
• American Greatness, and
• Just the News.