![]() But the DOJ argues in court documents that the plaintiffs did not prove a causal link between government officials’ conversations with social media companies and the platforms’ misinformation policy decisions. The White House and the Department of Justice, which is representing the administration in both cases, both declined to comment for this article. They could have broader impacts on everything from public health officials’ ability to lead in times of crisis to what users see on social media. These lawsuits represent the first major pushback against the Biden administration’s efforts to curb COVID-19 misinformation. His case also argues that he lost out on the opportunity to promote his November 2021 book, “Pandemia,” to his Twitter audience of more than 300,000.įormer New York Times reporter and COVID-19 vaccine critic Alex Berenson addresses attendees at the 2022 Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando, Florida, Feb. But now, he is suing current and former administration officials as well as a Pfizer board member and the company’s CEO for allegedly working together to get him censored. Berenson sued Twitter, and was later reinstated after a settlement. Berenson’s Twitter account was suspended for the first time. Government officials’ frustration with Twitter and other social media platforms intensified, boiling over in mid-July 2021 when President Joe Biden said “they’re killing people” – though he later said he meant specific users, not the platforms themselves. “A prosperous, scientifically advanced society depends on the right to dissent, especially in science and medicine,” says Columbia law professor Philip Hamburger, whose New Civil Liberties Alliance is representing four plaintiffs in the Missouri case. The outcome of these suits could have a profound effect on future scientific debates, from COVID-19 vaccines to other divisive issues such as climate change. “I think governments have a duty to inform their citizenry,” says Nina Jankowicz, a disinformation expert initially named in the Missouri case. Courts are weighing whether the government’s effort to suppress social media posts it defined as “misinformation” unfairly silenced dissenting views, to the detriment of scientific debate.Ī key question in this and related lawsuits is whether the government’s efforts to flag certain content on social media platforms amounted to violating the First Amendment. Government lawyers argue in court documents that officials have a right and responsibility to speak out on issues affecting the public welfare, and that platforms were free to make independent decisions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |