About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (July 26, 2023)

handle is hein.crs/govemhx0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Congressional_______ Aa Research Service Louisiana Court Rules on Government Communications with Social Media Companies July 26, 2023 On July 4, 2023, a Louisiana federal district court entered a preliminary injunction in Missouri v. Biden, preventing a number of executive branch agencies and employees from communicating with social media companies in certain ways. The court cited free speech concerns with prior government communications that allegedly led to the censorship of third parties on private social media platforms. The injunction is broad: it prevents the agencies-including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Census Bureau, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Department of Justice-from encouraging social media companies to remove or restrict content containing protected free speech. The injunction contains exceptions for certain communications relating to criminal activity, national security, election misinformation, and permissible public government speech, among other things. The order bars prohibited government communications with all social media companies, an undefined term. It may thus implicate the same types of concerns commentators have previously raised about nationwide injunctions that bar government enforcement actions against non-parties. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has now entered a temporary administrative stay preventing enforcement of the order during the government's appeal of the ruling. The case is set for oral argument at the Fifth Circuit on August 10. This Sidebar discusses the legal basis for the preliminary injunction in Missouri v. Biden, focusing on the First Amendment concerns raised by the plaintiffs. Legal Background: First Amendment and Government Coercion or Encouragement The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from abridging the freedom of speech. The First Amendment generally does not restrict private parties absent special circumstances. Accordingly, as a prior Legal Sidebar discussed, a number of courts have dismissed lawsuits attempting to challenge the actions of private social media companies under the First Amendment. Users whose content has been removed or restricted have challenged these restrictions on their speech, but without government action, courts have said these private content moderation actions do not implicate the First Amendment. Some plaintiffs, though, have alleged the government coerced or encouraged the private company into restricting their content, asserting a type of informal pressure sometimes known as jawboning. Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB11012 CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most