Federal Judge Allows States to Present Case in Censorship Lawsuit Against US Government

November 10, 2024 TruthUSA

The order comes after the Supreme Court found that Missouri and Louisiana lacked standing to block the Biden administration from communicating with social media companies.

A federal judge has granted permission to two states that are suing the federal government for allegedly encouraging social media platforms to censor user views. This will allow them to conduct further discovery in order to maintain their lawsuit.

Discovery is essential for litigants to gather evidence for trial, and it can involve examinations under oath and requests for documents.

U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty of Monroe, Louisiana, issued a new order on Nov. 8 after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the request by Missouri and Louisiana to prevent the Biden administration from communicating with social media companies regarding public health issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The states filed a lawsuit against the federal government for censorship, alleging that it pressured social media platforms to suppress certain content.

During the pandemic, U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy publicly encouraged social media platforms to prevent the spread of COVID-19 misinformation identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The FBI and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) also communicated with the platforms about election-related misinformation before the 2020 presidential election and the 2022 congressional elections.

In a June vote, the justices voted 6–3, determining that the states and five social media users who challenged the federal government did not have legal standing to seek an injunction because they could not demonstrate direct harm from the government’s efforts to communicate with the platforms.

Standing refers to the right of someone to sue in court and requires a strong enough connection to the law or action in question to justify participation in the lawsuit.

The states argue that the Biden administration coerced social media companies to censor opposing views on critical public issues such as potential COVID-19 vaccine side effects and pandemic restrictions, violating Americans’ First Amendment rights.

Conservatives and others have criticized social media platforms for censoring information on transgender issues, COVID-19, and the 2020 election.

Some believe that removing posts on social media is necessary to combat misinformation, while others argue that platforms are not doing enough to address falsehoods.

In his new order, Doughty considers it appropriate to inquire about further discovery to determine the issue of standing and the court’s authority to proceed with the case or dismiss it.

The states have requested discovery, while the federal government has sought dismissal, creating a standstill.

A higher standard of standing is required for an injunction compared to the minimal showing needed to sustain litigation.

While the Supreme Court ruling overturned Doughty’s previous ruling, he believes that the states have demonstrated the necessity for additional discovery on the standing matter.

Although President Joe Biden’s upcoming replacement by President-elect Donald Trump is imminent, the judge finds it speculative to dismiss the case solely based on this upcoming change in administration.

Efforts to reach out to the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana and the U.S. Department of Justice for comment were unsuccessful at the time of publication.

Source link