Biden Appeals Judge’s Ban on Government Asking for Social Media Takedowns
State Department officials, according to a Facebook employee speaking with The Washington Post, told the company all future monthly meetings to discuss content takedowns were “canceled pending further guidance.” The reported cancellation means government officials and trust and safety representatives at Facebook will no longer meet to discuss brewing political misinformation or foreign influence operations. It’s unclear whether other agencies have taken similar measures following the ruling or if Google or Twitter have canceled meetings. The State Department, Meta, and Google did not immediately respond to Gizmodo’s request for comment. Twitter sent us a 💩 . …
Judge compares Biden’s admin’s meeting with tech companies to Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’
The Justice Department appealed Trump-appointed federal Judge Terry A. Doughty’s preliminary injunction hours after it landed, according to court documents filed Wednesday evening. Doughty’s preliminary injunction bars numerous government agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) from contacting or asking social media companies about posts he said are protected by the First Amendment. The ruling does offer some exceptions for government communications with tech firms intended to warn them of national security threats, criminal activity, and voter suppression. Government officials maintain their content recommendations to social networks were merely suggestions, not legal demands. Doughty said numerous uncovered communications show Biden administration officials wielded threats of increased regulations or a stripping of Section 230 immunity protections to get its way.
Related:
State Dept. cancels Facebook meetings after judge’s ‘censorship’ ruling
When tech companies and State Department officials meet, “they talk about foreign influence, they compare notes. It gives them the opportunity to ask questions about foreign influence they are seeing,” this person said. “State will share Russian narratives, things they are seeing in state media in Russia about U.S. topics. They will ask whether Facebook is seeing things from known entities, such as the Chinese Communist Party or the Internet Research Agency,” the Russian entity thought responsible for much of the interference in the 2016 election. …
“The really tough question is when does the government cross the line from responding to speech — which it can and should do — to coercing platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech?” Kosseff said. “The judge here believes that line was crossed, and he certainly cited some persuasive examples,” such as administration officials suggesting antitrust actions against tech firms or changes to their liability protections while criticizing their content moderation efforts.
Ms. Cat’s Chronicles 