Biden Administration Officials Restricted from Communicating with Social Media Companies

Introduction

On 4th July 2023, US federal Judge Terry Doughty delivered a ruling which restricted communications between the Biden administration and social media companies. This follows accusations of officials forcing content to be censored on platforms. The Biden administration has been criticised for applying pressure on private organisations. The opposition has described its actions as an attack on First Amendment rights, in particular by referring to the freedom of expression.

Understanding the ruling

Judge Doughty accredited his decision to ‘compelling evidence’, produced by the Attorney Generals of Missouri and Louisiana. He accepted that it demonstrated officials’ influence over social media sites; leading to content removal on platforms. The main type of content at issue pertained to COVID-19 and the global pandemic.

On the one hand, Judge Doughty’s decision demonstrates an effort at limiting any potential censorship powers of the government and a commitment to the First Amendment. However, the breadth of this verdict may also have a negative impact. Alongside addressing the actions of Biden’s administration, the decision also restricts communications between various government agencies, such as the Department of Justice and the FBI, and social media companies. In turn, this may hinder the moderation of harmful online content if the agencies cannot easily liaise with the platform providers.  

Exceptions to the ruling

It should be noted that Judge Doughty listed a number of exceptions to this broad judgement. In an effort to mitigate the harm inflicted on American national security, the decision acknowledged the importance of moderating national security threats, voter suppression and cyber security threats. This demonstrates an attempt to address concerns over the actions of the Biden administration without jeopardising overall national security.

Conclusion

Balancing national security alongside the protection of free speech in the cyberspace is a difficult task. Whilst the evidence advanced in the case is strong, the decision is not definitive and may eventually be overturned. For now, it demonstrates a preference towards the protection of First Amendment rights.

By Alexander McLean