Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry on Tuesday hailed a major victory for the First Amendment after a federal court issued a preliminary injunction partially restraining the federal government from working with big tech companies to censor Americans’ speech on social media platforms.
The decision, handed down on Independence Day, comes amid a lengthy legal battle challenging what Landry described as “one of the most massive undertakings of the federal government to limit American speech in the history of our country.”
Landry stressed the importance of the case and expressed his satisfaction with the court’s decision. “It’s a great day today. I mean, what a day to have is this handed down by the federal courts—Independence Day, of all days,” Landry said. “This could be arguably one of the most important First Amendment cases in modern history.”
He furthermore described the ruling’s timing as “symbolic and important,” noting that Independence Day marks a day in American history when its men “went out and fought against tyranny, specifically to be able to enjoy liberty.”
“There is no liberty if we don’t have the ability to discuss important ideas, to debate in the marketplace of ideas, and on the public square,” Landry said. “There is no liberty and no independence. ”
U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty of Louisiana granted the injunction in the case of State of Missouri v. Joseph R Biden Jr. brought by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri in a 2022 lawsuit.
The ruling focuses on the alleged coordination between high-ranking White House officials and social media platforms to target and remove content from certain individuals.
“We found ... email chains between high-ranking White House officials and social media platforms specifically targeting certain individuals, such as Robert Kennedy Jr., Tucker Carlson, Tomi Lauren, and others; directly targeting them and asking those social media platforms to take their content down,“ Landry said. ”That is extremely concerning.”
The court also found evidence suggesting that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) knew the authenticity of the Hunter Biden laptop but failed to inform social media platforms about it, he added.
Injunction ‘Begins Curtailing’ Government Overreach
The injunction, described by Landry as a “broad” measure, prohibits the listed government actors involved in the case from engaging with social media companies to censor Americans’ speech.Landry said the order “begins curtailing” government interference in “basically choosing what is information, disinformation, and misinformation” on social media platforms is.
The ruling restains several government agencies and individuals from “encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”
It specifies certain officials and agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the United States Census Bureau, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Department of State, and other entities.
Several officials are specifically named in the order, including Xavier Becerra, Secretary of HHS; Dr. Hugh Auchincloss, Director of NIAID; Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy; White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, and more.
‘Put a Fence Around’ Government Authority
The lawsuit brought by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri alleged that the federal government overstepped when attempting to persuade social media companies to address posts that might contribute to vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic or impact elections.The lawsuit alleges that the Biden administration employed the threat of regulatory consequences to force social media platforms to suppress information it deemed as misinformation regarding masks and vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In his ruling, Doughty cited “substantial evidence” of a far-reaching censorship campaign. He noted that the evidence presented so far “depicts an almost dystopian scenario.”
“During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth,'” Doughty wrote in his ruling.
Speaking about the significance of the ruling, Landry emphasized the need to redefine the limits of the federal government’s authority in relation to Americans’ freedom of speech.
“We’re in uncharted territories,” he said. “This case is the beginning of starting to put a fence around, or basically start to pin the federal government into a corner, in exactly what they can and can’t do.”
Government Says Injunction Hinders ‘Ability to Combat Foreign Malign Influence’
Lawyers for the Biden administration argued that the government left it up to social media companies to decide what constituted misinformation and how to combat it.The lawsuit was likened in one brief to an attempt to place a legal gag order on the federal government and “suppress the speech of federal government officials under the guise of protecting the speech rights of others.”
“Plaintiffs’ proposed injunction would significantly hinder the Federal Government’s ability to combat foreign malign influence campaigns, prosecute crimes, protect the national security, and provide accurate information to the public on matters of grave public concern such as health care and election integrity,” the government’s May 3 court filing states.
Responding to criticisms along these lines highlighted in the New York Times on July 4, Landry asserted that dealing with foreign influences is “nothing new” for the United States.
“We’ve been dealing with foreign influences since the beginning of the country,“ he said. ”We dealt with it all through the Cold War, World War Two, World War One, when we had enemies at our gate,” he added.
The White House and various agencies named in the injunction didn’t respond to a previous request by The Epoch Times for comment.
Landry Warns Against Government Becoming ‘Arbiter of Truth’
Landry emphasized that the First Amendment empowers American citizens to make informed decisions and warned against a scenario where the government becomes the sole arbiter of truth.“We consistently understand that foreign countries will tend to try to influence Americans. The First Amendment is designed to allow Americans to make their decision—their informed decision,” Landry said. “When one particular institution—say the federal government—then becomes the arbiter of truth, then you no longer are citizens; you’re basically subjects to that institution.”
“Remember, throughout the pandemic, the government tried to step in between American citizens and their doctors. They tried to make some American medicine, in regards to this virus, monolithic, or basically, one size fits all. That’s not the way health care is supposed to be practiced,” Landry said.
Exceptions
Addressing concerns about potential exceptions to the injunction, Landry commended the judge for establishing reasonable “guardrails” for the federal government. He acknowledged the need for exceptions but emphasized that any “abusive” actions by the government within that scope could be challenged in court now in the wake of the July 4 ruling.Landry also pointed out that Americans are more alert to censorship efforts. “Remember, we’re now ... in a different territory and a different time,” he said. “More people are aware of the censorship that was going on over the last three to four years.”
Future Elections
As the country moves towards the 2024 elections, Landry believes that Americans will be more guarded and observant of the government’s actions.He highlighted the case’s connection to election misinformation and disinformation, saying that Americans should be able to discuss and debate important ideas freely “in the virtual public square without interference from the government.”
“We know now,” Landry said. “It’s proved that the government knew that the ... Hunter Biden laptop was real, and that information on it was absolutely corrosive to President Biden’s election. And yet they hid that from the American people.
“All political experts all agree that had the Hunter Biden laptop story not been censored, the president most likely would have lost the election,” he added. “I mean, think about that. That is our own government keeping information that is vital to Americans making a decision as to who the President of the United States is away from them long enough for us not to be able to make informed decisions.”
Landry stressed the importance of this case and expressed his view that Americans should follow its developments closely.
“Because, again, if the government can go out there and suppress information on presidential candidates, then Americans are really not free to decide who they really want to vote for,” he added.
While the ruling represents a significant milestone, Landry acknowledged that the case is far from over. He expects the government to appeal the decision to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and expressed confidence that the case will ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
The preliminary injunction will remain in effect until the case is finally resolved or further orders are issued by the court.
The ruling stems from an ongoing legal dispute regarding the influence of federal agencies and officials on social media content censorship.
“The next steps for us is to continue to litigate the case. To ask for more discovery. To continue to compel the government to give us information, which helps us to prove our case,” Landry said.
