![]() ![]() The resulting ruling, however, is not just a muddled set of instructions for communication between government and tech platforms (an urgent issue for those concerned with misinformation as we approach the 2024 presidential election). The exceptions include, for instance, telling the companies about postings involving criminal activity - but also telling them about “national security threats,” which could easily be used as general pretext for government interference with protected speech. ![]() The injunction seems to prevent anyone in the Biden administration from having any kind of communication with online platforms about matters related to speech.īut in a baffling list of exceptions, Judge Doughty cites situations - some reasonable, others possibly contravening First Amendment doctrine - in which the government may still communicate with platforms about speech. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana by two Republican state attorneys general, is the cherry-picked legal analysis attached to an overbroad injunction. ![]() The 155-page opinion, which could hinder the government’s efforts to counter false and misleading online speech about issues like election interference and vaccine safety, is laced with lofty references to George Orwell and quotations from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, making it more reminiscent of a civics essay than a federal judicial opinion.īut the far more objectionable part of Judge Doughty’s ruling in the case, which was brought in the U.S. Doughty, who wrote the opinion, did his best to cover his tracks. No feat of rhetoric could disguise the flagrantly political nature of the federal court ruling on July 4 that restricted the Biden administration’s communications with social media platforms - but Judge Terry A. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |