The US government has filed for an emergency stay to lift a recent injunction issued by a federal judge that prohibits the government from violating the First Amendment rights of Americans by colluding with businesses of social media to censor their constitutionally protected speech.
In the emergency stay, the government argued that the requirement was vague and that attorneys general could not show damages from censorship, an argument that Judge Terry Doughty had rejected several times in the past.
“Defendants respectfully request that the Court stay its July 4 preliminary injunction pending Defendant’s appeal of that order,” the government argued. “The Government faces irreparable harm every day that the requirement remains in effect, as the broad scope and ambiguous terms of the requirement (including the lack of clarity regarding what it does not prohibit) can be read to prevent the Government from engaging in a wide range of lawful and responsible conduct, including speaking out on matters of public interest and working with social media companies on initiatives to prevent serious harm to the American people and our democratic processes.” .
“These immediate and continuing damages to the Government outweigh any risk of injury to the plaintiffs if a stay is granted, and for the same reason, a stay is in the public interest,” the government added. “Furthermore, Defendants have shown a substantial case on the merits as to Plaintiffs’ lack of Article III standing and failure to present evidence to support their First Amendment claims. Accordingly, this Court should exercise its discretion to temporarily stay the preliminary injunction pending the defendants’ Fifth Circuit appeal.”
Therefore, the government’s request for a stay makes it clear that the government believes that its purported defense of “democracy” trumps the constitutionally protected rights of American citizens.
The suit, first filed by Republican Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry in May, alleged that White House officials colluded with or coerced the big tech companies to “remove disfavored speakers, viewpoints and content” from its platforms with “discrimination.” tags “-info”, “incorrect information” and “incorrect information”.
The mandate marks a victory for state attorneys general, who allege the Biden administration has sanctioned a “massive federal ‘censorship enterprise'” that promotes tech giants to exclude politically undesirable perspectives and speakers . Conservatives who argue that the government is suppressing their speech also consider it a victory. The attorneys general state that these actions constitute “the most egregious violations of the First Amendment in the history of the United States.”
The demand lists several limitations that could be imposed on federal authorities when dealing with technology companies, including discouraging them from urging, encouraging or pressuring social media companies to delete or remove protected free speech content.
Judge Doughty clarified that officials are allowed to talk to tech companies about posts or accounts related to criminal activity such as child pornography. He mentioned that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has for years relied on the cooperation of social media companies to identify networks of pedophiles. Officials will also be able to discuss threats to national security, illicit political campaign activities and cyber attacks.
While a final decision on the case is still pending, Judge Doughty is widely expected to side with Republicans, ending more than a decade of collaborative efforts between federal authorities and industry leaders technology that have significant power to regulate public dialogue. .
“*” Indicates mandatory fields
OPINION: This article contains comments that reflect the opinion of the author.
English 
Español de Venezuela