A US appeals court temporarily blocks a lower court order that sharply limited US government officials' and agencies' contacts with social media companies
A U.S. appeals court on Friday temporarily blocked a lower court order that had sharply limited certain Biden administration officials …
The case became a larger test of the legal boundary between government communications and platform moderation, later reaching the Supreme Court through a separate pause of the lower-court ruling.
First-order effects
The lower court's sharp limits are temporarily inactive, allowing the affected U.S. officials and agencies to resume contacts that the injunction had restricted.
Social media companies no longer face an immediate court-ordered constraint on receiving those government communications while the appeal is pending.
Second-order effects
The stay shifts the near-term advantage to the Biden administration and raises the stakes of the appeal, rather than forcing agencies to rapidly redesign their communications practices.
Platforms must continue operating amid unresolved legal risk: cooperation with officials remains possible now, but the governing standard could change again as litigation advances.
Third-order effects
The litigation positions courts as a central arbiter of where public-interest outreach ends and impermissible government influence over private moderation begins.
If similar disputes continue, agencies and platforms may need more formalized records and policies for their interactions, regardless of which legal standard ultimately prevails.
The trend: This is one point in a widening legal struggle over whether and how governments may engage platforms on online misinformation without infringing speech protections.
Makes sense. Doughty's opinion was so wrong-headed about the First Amendment and government and the platforms. Good on the 5th circuit. https://www.washingtonpost.com/ ...
The ruling creates several exceptions in which gov't may contact platforms to flag threats to nat'l security & foreign election interference. Legally, these are dangerous opening for platforms/courts to determine what constitutes speech gov't can ask about & which it cannot.
The 5th Circuit just granted the Biden admin temporary relief from Judge Doughty's ruling two wks ago, which had banned gov't agencies/officials from contacting social media companies. Appellate order is minimal but this gives time for oral arguments:https://talkingpointsmemo.com…
BREAKING: FIFTH CIRCUIT STAYS MISSOURI'S ULTRA-DUMB LAWSUIT BANNING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM DEFENDING AGAINST FOREIGN CYBER ATTACKS https://www.reuters.com/...
Practically, by the time platform content has reached the level of a public safety, national security or election interference threat, it's likely already gone viral and it is dangerously late in the game to mitigate visibility and real-world harm.
The lower court ruling posed a dangerous chilling threat to expression which the platforms could use as pretext to retreat from necessary election integrity & trust/safety efforts. I explain what's at stake for the 1st Amendment & platform accountability: https://techpolicy.press…
@wendyp4545 It's a temporary injunction which is not unusual. The initial decision was a solid one that should hold up to judicial review. https://www.reuters.com/...
Judge Doughty's misguided ruling would likely only fan the flames of Big Tech minimalism under the guise of protecting free speech. For now, the 5th Circuit stay mitigates the chilling effect of Doughty's ruling. More from me as we wait for oral arguments.
Doughty's ruling is overly broad, overlooking First Amendment precedent. The mere act of contacting social media companies regarding violative content, incl. lies abt COVID & elections, shouldn't in itself be considered an 'attack against free speech."https://www.justsecurity.org…