The Attorneys General of Missouri and Louisiana dispute the federal government’s argument that efforts to censor disfavored speech on social media platforms are merely persuasive, not coercive in nature.
“Defendants argue that the White House requested the removal of posts “with no strings attached,” the generals state in a May 20 brief supporting a preliminary injunction (PI). “On the contrary, the White House’s communications with platforms are marked by a long series of express and implied threats.”
In the State of Missouri ex rel. Schmitt, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., et al, plaintiffs Missouri AG Andrew Bailey and Louisiana AG Jeff Landry allege that YouTube, Meta, and Twitter acted as an arm of the U.S. government in violation of the First Amendment, especially for conservative users in disagreement with U.S. Pres. Joe Biden’s administration.
“The government has filed a 277-page brief, and that's not even the facts,” said John Vecchione, senior litigation counsel with New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA). “The facts they submitted are in a 700-page long brief.”
Vecchione is representing the plaintiffs in the matter. Oral arguments on the PI are set for May 26.
If granted, the injunction would prevent the White House from demanding, urging, encouraging, pressuring, coercing, deceiving, colluding with, or otherwise inducing social media companies to censor speech on their platforms.
“Defendants made no threats and instead sought to persuade,” the government’s brief in opposition to the PI states. “Plaintiffs mischaracterize Defendants’ statements and communications as coercive, and their argument hinges on a fundamentally mistaken comparison between this case and Bantam Books.”
In Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that states are required to provide safeguards before banning books over alleged obscenities.
"The evidence shows that Defendants specifically authorized and approved the actions of the social-media companies and provides dozens of examples where Defendants dictated specific censorship decisions to social media platforms," the plaintiffs state in their brief supporting a PI.
A similar lawsuit filed by former U.S. President Donald Trump against Twitter is currently pending with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Trump and other conservatives allege in Trump v Twitter that they were banned on social media in violation of the First Amendment.
“When Elon Musk opened up the Twitter files, it was like a fire hose coming at us and we had to put all that information back into the case so we've been doing that and waiting for the appeals court to make a decision,” said Attorney John P.Coale. who is representing Trump in Trump v Twitter.
Serial entrepreneur Elon Musk acquired Twitter on October 27, 2022, and released to journalists secret communications between Twitter staff and numerous federal officials and law enforcement agents, showing that they had allegedly collaborated to suppress constitutionally protected speech.