A federal appeals court appeared hesitant to lift a lower court ruling on Thursday limiting the Biden administration‘s ability to work with social media companies on content moderation, prompting one judge to make a “mob” analogy.
A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit heard arguments in the administration’s appeal of a federal district court judge’s surprise July 4 preliminary injunction, which found the federal government erred when it asked Big Tech social media companies to suppress certain political views.
INFLATION TICKED UP TO 3.2% IN JULY IN SETBACK FOR BIDEN AND FED
U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty ruled in favor of Republican attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, who alleged that conservative speech had been censored on social media platforms, especially speech related to the pandemic, describing it as “Orwellian.” The government appealed the decision, and arguments took place Thursday before three judges, Edith Clement, Jennifer Elrod, and Don Willett, all appointees of Republican presidents.
Elrod, an appointee of then-President George W. Bush, made a striking analogy to mob behavior but clarified she wasn’t equating the government to “anybody in illegal organized crime.”
“I’m certainly not equating the federal government to this, but this is an analogy … probably an inapt analogy, so, if you’ll excuse me, like if somebody is in these movies that we see with the mob or something, they don’t say and spell out things, but they have these ongoing relationships and they never actually say, ‘Go do this or else you’re going to have this consequence,’” Elrod said. “But everybody just knows — and I’m certainly not equating the federal government with anybody in illegal organized crime — but there are certain relationships that people know things without always saying the ‘or else.'”
Daniel Tenny, an attorney for the Justice Department, argued Thursday that Doughty’s ruling interferes with the federal government’s ability to deal with misinformation in emergencies and violates the government’s own right to free speech.
“Plaintiffs have urged, for example, that if there were a natural disaster and there were untrue statements circulating on social media that were damaging to the public interest, the government would be powerless under the injunction to discourage social media companies from further disseminating those incorrect statements,” Tenny said.
Doughty wrote that the “Orwellian” efforts by the government started in 2019 with officials asking social media companies such as Alphabet-owned YouTube, Meta’s Facebook platform, and Twitter, now known as X, to minimize the spread of posts they considered to be misinformation.
Dean John Sauer, an attorney for the states, spoke quickly during his 30 minutes and asserted that the “right to listen” is just as important as the “right to speak.
“And these plaintiffs assert the right to listen. They assert the right to listen to virtually every one of the speakers that was silenced by federal censorship in this case.”
Sauer also explained in significant detail the plaintiffs’ view that the FBI engaged in “deception.”
In response to a question from Clement asking if “the activity of the FBI [was] as egregious as the activity of the White House,” Sauer said, “They’re different … the FBI engaged in deception.” He then detailed the knowledge the FBI withheld from social media companies about the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s laptop.
The appeals court on July 14 agreed to halt Doughty’s injunction against the Biden administration temporarily. It blocked dozens of officials, including press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, from speaking to a host of tech firms and noted that most of the speech that had been suppressed was conservative in nature.
Counsel for the government asked the panel on Thursday to reverse Doughty’s order, noting that if it decides not to, they would request a 10-day stay of that decision to provide time for appeal to the Supreme Court. The 5th Circuit could reinstate the judge’s order, continue the stay, or institute a narrower compromise between the two.
Biden’s lawyer seriously insinuated COVID caused a lot in the world to change, and thus, government censorship is permissible.
— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) August 10, 2023
Missouri Attorney Andrew Bailey, a Republican, released a statement following oral arguments, claiming that Tenny “seriously insinuated COVID caused a lot in the world to change, and thus, government censorship is permissible.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“Today’s oral argument in Missouri v. Biden proved what we’ve known all along: the Biden Administration has shamelessly and relentlessly coerced and colluded with social media platforms to censor free speech,” Bailey added.
Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.
