The Blubber

FBI and White House likely coerced social media platforms into removing posts, an appeals court has ruled.


On Friday, a federal appeals court rendered a ruling that refined the extent of a district court judgment. The initial judgment had imposed limitations on communications between government entities and social media companies while also suggesting that several agencies might have infringed upon the First Amendment.

This ruling facilitates enhanced communication between various federal agencies and social media giants like Meta, Google, and X (formerly known as Twitter). They can now more easily report concerns they come across on these platforms. However, it's imperative for officials still bound by the adjusted injunction, including those at the White House, to exercise caution in their interactions with these platforms to prevent any perception of coercion.

The original lawsuit was instigated by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana. They contended that federal officials had exerted undue pressure on social media companies to restrict speech on their platforms, particularly concerning posts related to the Covid pandemic or elections. In July, Chief Judge Terry A. Doughty, appointed by Donald Trump for the Western District of Louisiana, issued an injunction that significantly constrained such communications. However, exceptions were made for federal officials to raise concerns related to national security risks or criminal activities.

This decision had an immediate impact. In the wake of the district court's order in July, the State Department canceled its recurring monthly meeting with Facebook officials regarding election preparations, as reported by The Washington Post.

Nonetheless, on Friday, a three-judge panel from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the injunction had been overly broad. The panel narrowed its application to specific federal offices and agencies and curtailed its scope accordingly