- “Disinformation researchers” are furious after a court order issued on Tuesday prohibited the government from collaborating with social media platforms to censor protected speech, according to The New York Times.
- The researchers asserted that government coordination with platforms for content censorship was not a concern as long as it did not involve coercion, and that the government had merely informed platforms regarding potentially harmful content rather than exerting pressure on them.
- “It’s bananas that you can’t show a nipple on the Super Bowl but Facebook can still broadcast Nazi propaganda, empower stalkers and harassers, undermine public health and facilitate extremism in the United States,” Imran Ahmed, CEO of the British organization Center for Countering Digital Hate, told the NYT.
“Disinformation researchers” are distressed following a Tuesday court order that prevents the government from colluding with social media platforms to censor protected speech, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.
A federal judge issued the preliminary injunction to prohibit President Joe Biden’s administration from coordinating with social media platforms to censor content after finding that such coordination likely violated the First Amendment. Multiple “disinformation researchers” argued that government coordination with platforms to censor speech was not problematic unless it involved coercion, asserting that the government only notified the companies about potentially harmful content rather than pressuring them, according to the NYT.
The U.S.’s handling of harmful information is “particularly fangless” compared to Australia and the European Union, Imran Ahmed, CEO of the British organization Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), told the NYT. The injunction cited CCDH’s briefing to the Office of the Surgeon General regarding its 2021 report dubbed “The Disinformation Dozen,” which argues for de-platforming influential anti-vaccine activists such as now-Democratic Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
“It’s bananas that you can’t show a nipple on the Super Bowl but Facebook can still broadcast Nazi propaganda, empower stalkers and harassers, undermine public health and facilitate extremism in the United States,” Ahmed told the NYT. (RELATED: CNN Legal Analyst Says New Ruling Limiting Biden Admin From Censoring Free Speech Is ‘Dramatic’ )
“This court decision further exacerbates that feeling of impunity social media companies operate under, despite the fact that they are the primary vector for hate and disinformation in society.”
Our CEO @Imi_Ahmed in the @nytimes. ⤵️https://t.co/BiNlIufLvM
— Center for Countering Digital Hate (@CCDHate) July 6, 2023
“The government should be able to inform social media companies about things that they feel are harmful to the public,” Miriam Metzger, a University of California, Santa Barbara communication professor and an affiliate of its Center for Information Technology and Society, told the NYT.
Metzger expressed concerns about government coercion to the Daily Caller News Foundation, but stated that there is a distinction.
“We’re not talking about direct government censorship. We’re talking about the government alerting social media companies to potential problems,” Metzger told the DCNF. “The social media companies can do what they want with the information. Personally, I doubt that the social media companies feel ‘coerced’ in these kinds of instances.”
Western District of Louisiana Judge Terry A. Doughty granted the injunction after finding that Republicans Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, had shown “evidence of a massive effort by Defendants, from the White House to federal agencies, to suppress speech based on its content.”
Viktorya Vilk, the director for digital safety and free expression at PEN America, noted that social media platforms are more inclined to heed government solicitation over requests from private organizations and individuals, according to the NYT.
“Platforms are very good at ignoring civil society organizations and our requests for help or requests for information or escalation of individual cases,” Vilk told the NYT. “They are less comfortable ignoring the government.”
During the 2020 election, the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) facilitated “switchboards” enabling state and local election officials to flag so-called misinformation for it to be taken down by social media platforms, according to testimony by Special Assistant Attorney General for the Louisiana Department of Justice D. John Sauer in March. Additionally, a House Judiciary Committee report in June found that CISA used private surrogates to censor speech during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
Researchers are worried that the injunction will discourage young intellectuals from going into the field of “disinformation research” and frighten contributors who provide necessary funding grants, the NYT reported.
The Biden administration appealed the injunction on Wednesday.
CCDH and Vilk did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.