President Joe Biden’s administration may have violated First Amendment protections of free speech by working with Big Tech companies to censor election content, according to a new ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The court’s decision stems from a 2020 lawsuit by the Calguns Foundation and multiple other gun advocates, who had claimed that the Federal Department of Justice had worked with Twitter, Google, and other tech giants to prevent them from promoting their pro-gun messages and stories during the election cycle. In particular, the complainants alleged that the DOJ collaborated with these companies to suppress their “Second Amendment” messaging, which was an attempt to protect the mostly pro-gun Biden campaign in the weeks leading up to the election.
The Court of Appeal unanimously agreed that the plaintiffs had made “a plausible case” for their claims of government suppression of speech. In its ruling, the 9th Circuit affirmed the constitutional right to free speech while also recognizing the obviously necessary restrictions on certain aspects of speech.
The court noted that the government has wide latitude to target information it considers problematic or dangerous, such as instances of election interference or extremist rhetoric, but argued that it “went too far” by establishing an informal “cooperation” between itself and Big Tech companies and appears to have engaged in a kind of “selective censorship.”
The decision is seen as a victory for those who have been critical of the Biden administration’s approach to censorship, which some view as too broad and invasive. This is also an important reminder of the role of the courts in being able to adjudicate on issues of free speech, especially in the digital age, where censorship can quickly become a tool of oppression for those in power.
The ruling adds -to the growing list of legal precedents around free speech and censorship, and -offers insight into how courts will handle similar cases in the future. It’s also a -reminder that the Biden administration should -think carefully about its approach to this issue and -exercise the necessary restraint, as it could -face legal challenges from conservatives, liberals, and -others who feel their voices are being silenced.