Fifth Circuit to reconsider Big Tech free speech case as Supreme Court considers involvement.
The 5th Circuit Grants Rehearing in Missouri v. Biden Case
The Missouri v. Biden case, which previously imposed restrictions on the Biden administration’s communication with Big Tech companies regarding content moderation and free speech, has been granted a rehearing by the 5th Circuit. This decision comes after the Louisiana and Missouri state attorneys general requested the inclusion of various entities in the ruling, such as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the Election Integrity Project, and the State Department’s Global Engagement Center.
Biden Administration Accused of ‘Sue and Settle’ Tactic
The rehearing was approved just days before the Supreme Court is set to determine whether to uphold the lower court’s ruling. The attorneys general argue that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, in particular, has violated the First Amendment through its involvement in the Election Integrity Project, which they claim serves as a central hub for federal censorship efforts.
In July, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty of Louisiana issued an order that restricted the federal government’s communication with social media platforms regarding content. The subsequent ruling by a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals supported this decision but narrowed down the entities affected. The Biden administration appealed the ruling and requested a hold on the decision until a petition for review could be filed with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was initially expected to rule on Friday but extended the deadline until Wednesday. The rehearing is anticipated to take place after the Supreme Court’s decision.
Last year, Republican attorneys general from Missouri and Louisiana, along with four individual plaintiffs, filed the lawsuit. They claimed that their social media posts about the COVID-19 lab leak theory and vaccine side effects were either removed or suppressed, alleging that federal agencies coerced social media platforms into censoring them in violation of the First Amendment.
The Election Integrity Project, a collaboration between the Stanford Internet Observatory and other entities, was established to combat misinformation related to COVID-19 and the 2020 election. House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan has sought to obtain records of communications between the Election Integrity Project and federal agencies regarding misinformation.
Click here to read more from The Washington Examiner.
How does the use of the “sue-and-settle” strategy by the Biden administration affect public input and legal procedures?
-and-Settle’ Strategy
The decision to grant a rehearing in the Missouri v. Biden case has sparked renewed debate over the Biden administration’s alleged use of the “sue-and-settle” strategy. Critics argue that the administration frequently uses litigation as a means to settle ongoing disputes without going through the normal regulatory process. This approach has been criticized for circumventing public input and sidestepping proper legal procedures. In the Missouri v. Biden case, the original ruling placed constraints on the Biden administration’s ability to communicate with Big Tech companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google regarding content moderation and free speech issues. The plaintiffs argued that the administration’s collaboration with these companies effectively gave them the power to control speech and silence dissenting voices. The ruling aimed to ensure that the government’s involvement in content moderation was transparent and in line with First Amendment principles. Both the Louisiana and Missouri state attorneys general sought the inclusion of additional parties in the rehearing, expressing concerns over the potential implications of the original ruling. They requested the involvement of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the Election Integrity Project, and the State Department’s Global Engagement Center. These entities play crucial roles in ensuring cybersecurity, election integrity, and countering disinformation. The attorneys general argued that the inclusion of these parties would provide a more comprehensive perspective on the impact of the original ruling. They highlighted the importance of addressing potential national security risks, electoral integrity concerns, and the spread of disinformation in the digital age. By incorporating these entities into the rehearing, the court can gain a well-rounded understanding of the complexities surrounding the case. The rehearing in the Missouri v. Biden case has significant implications for free speech rights and content moderation practices on online platforms. The original ruling sought to strike a balance between protecting free speech and ensuring that the government’s involvement in content moderation does not infringe upon individuals’ First Amendment rights. However, the rehearing provides an opportunity to further examine and refine this delicate balance. The involvement of additional parties such as CISA and the Election Integrity Project highlights the growing recognition of the role cybersecurity and electoral integrity play in shaping discussions around free speech and content moderation. The court’s decision could potentially shape the future of content moderation policies, particularly regarding government involvement and the regulation of Big Tech companies. The Grant of Rehearing in the Missouri v. Biden case by the 5th Circuit shines a spotlight on the Biden administration’s alleged sue-and-settle strategy, inviting a broader examination of the government’s role in content moderation. By incorporating the perspectives of entities like CISA and the Election Integrity Project, the court can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the implications of its original ruling. The decision ultimately holds the potential to shape the future landscape of free speech, content moderation, and the government’s involvement in these critical issues.Additional Parties Requested to Join the Rehearing
Implications for Free Speech and Content Moderation
Conclusion
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
