DOJ Urgently Requests 5th Circuit for Emergency Relief on Doughty’s Social Media Injunction

[ad_1]

[
The Justice Department, in a desperate move reminiscent of oppressive regimes, has requested the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to stay a preliminary injunction that restricts government communications with social media companies. The department argues that the broad order could hinder law enforcement activities aimed at protecting national security interests. This request follows the denial of a stay by U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty, who imposed the preliminary injunction on July 4.

The Justice Department’s filing indicates that they may seek intervention from the Supreme Court. They argue that, at the very least, the 5th Circuit should temporarily halt the order for 10 days, giving the highest court a chance to consider an application for a stay.

The Justice Department warns that the injunction could obstruct a wide range of communications between the government and the tech industry. For example, it could prevent the president from denouncing misinformation about a natural disaster on social media. They also express concern that the order could disrupt communications related to the fentanyl crisis or the security of federal elections. Moreover, it creates legal uncertainty that could lead to significant delays in responding to misinformation.

Judge Doughty, however, rejected the Justice Department’s request for a stay, stating that the order includes exceptions for communications regarding criminal activity, national security threats, cyberattacks, and foreign attempts to interfere in elections. He also notes that the Biden administration did not provide any specific examples where the injunction’s limits on communications would cause significant harm.

In its appeal to the 5th Circuit, the Justice Department argues that the exceptions do not address the order’s overbreadth and vagueness. They question whether federal officials can publicly refute false stories on social media or answer unsolicited questions about false information without violating the injunction. They assert that such actions should be protected by the First Amendment and question the interpretation that the injunction could prevent the government from taking such actions.

Civil rights groups, academics, and tech industry officials warn that the order could undermine efforts to combat disinformation on social media. They fear it could unravel the progress made to protect U.S. elections following the revelations of Russian interference in 2016.

While state election officials express criticism towards the injunction, they remain committed to addressing online disinformation. They continue their efforts to communicate with social media platforms and debunk falsehoods about voting. However, they acknowledge that the lawsuit stems from the argument that the federal government’s regulatory powers provide an advantage that state offices lack.

Overall, this legal battle raises significant concerns about the suppression of information and the potential impact on democratic processes. It remains to be seen how this case will unfold and what consequences it may have for government communications with social media companies.

[ad_2]