周二，一名法官禁止几个联邦机构和拜登政府的官员与社交媒体公司就“受保护的言论”进行合作，这项决定被一名共和党官员称为“对审查制度的打击”，他的诉讼促使了这项裁决。
美国地区法官特里·多尔蒂路易斯安那批准禁令以回应路易斯安那州和密苏里州总检察长提起的2022年诉讼。他们的诉讼称，联邦政府在说服社交媒体公司解决可能导致新冠肺炎疫情或affect期间疫苗犹豫的帖子方面超越了努力选举南
多尔蒂引用了影响深远的审查运动的“实质性证据”。他写道，“迄今为止产生的证据描绘了一个近乎反乌托邦的场景。在新冠肺炎疫情时期，这个时期最大的特点可能是普遍的怀疑和不确定性，美国政府似乎承担了一个类似于奥威尔的“真理部”的角色"
提起诉讼时担任密苏里州总检察长的美国共和党参议员埃里克·施密特(Eric Schmitt)在推特上表示，这一裁决是“第一修正案的巨大胜利，也是对审查制度的打击。”
路易斯安那州司法部长杰夫·兰德里(Jeff Landry)表示，禁令阻止政府“审查普通美国人在社交媒体上的核心政治言论”。
兰德里在一份声明中说:“我们案件中的证据令人震惊，令人不快，因为联邦高级官员决定，他们可以决定美国人在脸书、推特、YouTube和其他平台上可以说什么，不可以说什么，涉及新冠肺炎、选举、对政府的批评等等。”。
司法部正在审查禁令，“并将评估本案中的选项，”一名未被授权公开讨论此案、要求匿名的白宫官员表示。
这名官员说:“本届政府在面临致命的疫情病毒和外国对我们选举的袭击等挑战时，推动了负责任的行动，以保护公共健康、安全和安保。”。“我们一贯的观点仍然是，社交媒体平台有重要责任考虑他们的平台对美国人民的影响，但对他们提供的信息做出独立选择。”
该裁决列出了几个政府机构，包括卫生与公众服务部(Department of Health and Human Services)和联邦调查局(FBI)，这些机构被禁令禁止与社交媒体公司进行旨在“鼓励、施压或以任何方式诱导移除、删除、压制或减少包含受保护的自由言论的内容”的讨论
该命令提到了几名官员的名字，包括卫生与公众服务部部长泽维尔·韦塞拉、国土安全部部长亚历杭德罗·马约尔卡斯等人。
Doughty允许几个例外，例如通知社交媒体公司涉及犯罪活动和阴谋的帖子;以及向社交媒体公司通知在平台上发布的国家安全威胁和其他威胁。
诉讼中的原告还包括个人，包括保守派网站所有者吉姆·霍夫特。该诉讼指控政府利用有利或不利的监管行动的可能性，迫使社交媒体平台压制它认为在新冠肺炎疫情期间关于口罩和疫苗的错误信息。它还触及了其他话题，包括对选举诚信的指控，以及关于总统之子亨特·拜登拥有的一台笔记本电脑上的材料的新闻报道。
政府律师表示，政府让社交媒体公司来决定什么是虚假信息，以及如何打击虚假信息。在一份简报中，他们将这起诉讼比作试图对联邦政府实施法律禁言令，并“在保护他人言论权利的幌子下压制联邦政府官员的言论。”
美国政府在5月3日的一份法庭文件中表示，“原告提出的禁令将严重阻碍联邦政府打击外国恶意影响运动、起诉犯罪、保护国家安全以及就医疗保健和选举诚信等公众严重关切的问题向公众提供准确信息的能力。”
Injunction blocks Biden administration from working with social media firms about 'protected speech'
A judge on Tuesday prohibited several federal agencies and officials of the Biden administration from working with social media companies about “protected speech,” a decision called “a blow to censorship” by one of the Republican officials whose lawsuit prompted the ruling.
U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty ofLouisianagranted the injunction in response to a 2022 lawsuit brought by attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri. Their lawsuit alleged that the federal government overstepped in its efforts to convince social media companies to address postings that could result in vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic or affectelections.
Doughty cited “substantial evidence” of a far-reaching censorship campaign. He wrote that the “evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’ ”
Republican U.S. Sen. Eric Schmitt, who was the Missouri attorney general when the lawsuit was filed, said on Twitter that the ruling was “a huge win for the First Amendment and a blow to censorship.”
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry said the injunction prevents the administration “from censoring the core political speech of ordinary Americans” on social media.
“The evidence in our case is shocking and offensive with senior federal officials deciding that they could dictate what Americans can and cannot say on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other platforms about COVID-19, elections, criticism of the government, and more," Landry said in a statement.
The Justice Department is reviewing the injunction “and will evaluate its options in this case,” said a White House official who was not authorized to discuss the case publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
“This administration has promoted responsible actions to protect public health, safety, and security when confronted by challenges like a deadly pandemic and foreign attacks on our elections,” the official said. “Our consistent view remains that social media platforms have a critical responsibility to take account of the effects their platforms are having on the American people, but make independent choices about the information they present.”
The ruling listed several government agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the FBI, that are prohibited by the injunction from discussions with social media companies aimed at “encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”
The order mentions by name several officials, including Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and others.
Doughty allowed several exceptions, such as informing social media companies of postings involving criminal activity and conspiracies; as well as notifying social media firms of national security threats and other threats posted on platforms.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit also included individuals, including conservative website owner Jim Hoft. The lawsuit accused the administration of using the possibility of favorable or unfavorable regulatory action to coerce social media platforms to squelch what it considered misinformation on masks and vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic. It also touched on other topics, including claims about election integrity and news stories about material on a laptop owned by Hunter Biden, the president’s son.
Administration lawyers said the government left it up to social media companies to decide what constituted misinformation and how to combat it. In one brief, they likened the lawsuit to an attempt to put a legal gag order on the federal government and “suppress the speech of federal government officials under the guise of protecting the speech rights of others.”
“Plaintiffs’ proposed injunction would significantly hinder the Federal Government’s ability to combat foreign malign influence campaigns, prosecute crimes, protect the national security, and provide accurate information to the public on matters of grave public concern such as health care and election integrity,” the administration says in a May 3 court filing.
