1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,840 --> 00:00:13,840
Speaker 1: Louisiana federal judge has refused to put a temporary hold

3
00:00:13,880 --> 00:00:18,120
Speaker 1: on his controversial order banning federal agencies and officials from

4
00:00:18,160 --> 00:00:23,080
Speaker 1: communicating with social media companies. Biden administration attorneys had asked

5
00:00:23,120 --> 00:00:27,440
Speaker 1: Judge Terry Dowdy, a Trump appointee, to stay his nationwide

6
00:00:27,480 --> 00:00:30,840
Speaker 1: injunction while they pursue an appeal to the Fifth Circuit.

7
00:00:31,160 --> 00:00:33,920
Speaker 1: After a year long delay, the judge had issued the

8
00:00:34,040 --> 00:00:37,760
Speaker 1: order on July fourth, giving a victory to Republican attorneys

9
00:00:37,800 --> 00:00:41,760
Speaker 1: general in Missouri and Louisiana and concluding that the government

10
00:00:42,040 --> 00:00:45,960
Speaker 1: likely violated the First Amendment in its efforts to persuade

11
00:00:46,040 --> 00:00:49,080
Speaker 1: tech companies to take steps to limit the spread of

12
00:00:49,200 --> 00:00:53,600
Speaker 1: misinformation and fake accounts, especially during the pandemic. Joining me

13
00:00:53,680 --> 00:00:57,760
Speaker 1: is Jess Meyer's Legal Advocacy Council at the Chamber of Progress.

14
00:00:58,120 --> 00:01:00,880
Speaker 1: Just I want to start with the July five fourth opinion,

15
00:01:00,920 --> 00:01:03,560
Speaker 1: which is one hundred and fifty five pages. Can you

16
00:01:03,600 --> 00:01:05,240
Speaker 1: summarize his findings for us?

17
00:01:05,600 --> 00:01:06,520
Speaker 2: Absolutely so.

18
00:01:07,080 --> 00:01:10,600
Speaker 3: The judge found that the plaintiffs were able to meet

19
00:01:10,600 --> 00:01:13,720
Speaker 3: their burden for the preliminary injunction when it comes to

20
00:01:14,200 --> 00:01:18,000
Speaker 3: state action. All this means is that when we later

21
00:01:18,120 --> 00:01:21,840
Speaker 3: consider a Merits decision or Merits opinion, the plaintiffs have

22
00:01:21,920 --> 00:01:24,880
Speaker 3: done enough to show that this conduct is enough to

23
00:01:24,920 --> 00:01:28,560
Speaker 3: be enjoined until that merit's decision is heard. The order

24
00:01:28,640 --> 00:01:32,840
Speaker 3: itself put out several requirements having to do with government

25
00:01:32,920 --> 00:01:34,479
Speaker 3: interaction with social media.

26
00:01:34,720 --> 00:01:36,080
Speaker 2: For the most part, the.

27
00:01:36,000 --> 00:01:41,080
Speaker 3: Biden administration defendants are prohibited from communicating with social media

28
00:01:41,120 --> 00:01:44,440
Speaker 3: companies about content unless it fits into some of the

29
00:01:44,480 --> 00:01:48,280
Speaker 3: exceptions provided, which were for things such as national security

30
00:01:48,480 --> 00:01:52,880
Speaker 3: and criminal activity. So that order is currently in place.

31
00:01:53,120 --> 00:01:56,640
Speaker 1: Can you tell me why the judge decided why he

32
00:01:56,880 --> 00:02:01,400
Speaker 1: thinks that the plaintiffs here will win on the merits.

33
00:02:02,280 --> 00:02:05,160
Speaker 3: Importantly, what the court was looking for in this case

34
00:02:05,400 --> 00:02:09,040
Speaker 3: is significant encouragement and coercion from the government. That's the

35
00:02:09,080 --> 00:02:12,239
Speaker 3: analysis that these judges look for when they are assessing

36
00:02:12,360 --> 00:02:13,560
Speaker 3: improper state action.

37
00:02:14,080 --> 00:02:14,919
Speaker 2: So the court was.

38
00:02:14,880 --> 00:02:17,760
Speaker 3: Considering whether any of the government's request to the platforms

39
00:02:17,760 --> 00:02:21,280
Speaker 3: could be reasonably perceived as threats, for example, to engage

40
00:02:21,320 --> 00:02:25,239
Speaker 3: in censorship, and from the evidence that was presented and

41
00:02:25,600 --> 00:02:29,800
Speaker 3: thoroughly discussed throughout the opening of the opinion, the court

42
00:02:29,840 --> 00:02:34,400
Speaker 3: seemed to agree that there is evidence of significant coercion

43
00:02:34,560 --> 00:02:38,320
Speaker 3: to engage in censorship from the governments to the tech companies.

44
00:02:38,480 --> 00:02:41,480
Speaker 3: The court also assessed the extent of the government's overall

45
00:02:41,520 --> 00:02:45,200
Speaker 3: involvement in the platform's content moderation decisions. And again it

46
00:02:45,360 --> 00:02:47,880
Speaker 3: presents a question as to you know, what is the

47
00:02:47,919 --> 00:02:52,280
Speaker 3: extent that the government is just rotely requesting or reporting

48
00:02:52,360 --> 00:02:56,000
Speaker 3: that content should be taken down versus strong arming the

49
00:02:56,040 --> 00:02:58,200
Speaker 3: companies for example, And did.

50
00:02:58,040 --> 00:03:02,040
Speaker 1: The judge find that the bidenminstration was strong arming the companies?

51
00:03:02,560 --> 00:03:05,480
Speaker 3: The judge found that there was enough evidence presented to

52
00:03:05,680 --> 00:03:09,360
Speaker 3: potentially meet that burden required under state action. So in

53
00:03:09,440 --> 00:03:13,600
Speaker 3: order to then actually determine that significant coercion and encouragement

54
00:03:13,680 --> 00:03:16,680
Speaker 3: took place on the part of the Biden administration, there

55
00:03:16,680 --> 00:03:19,560
Speaker 3: would have to be a merits discussion. The Court now,

56
00:03:19,600 --> 00:03:23,120
Speaker 3: in granting this preliminary injunction, has found that there is

57
00:03:23,240 --> 00:03:27,919
Speaker 3: enough evidence to reasonably decide to enjoin the actions between

58
00:03:27,919 --> 00:03:30,840
Speaker 3: the government and social media companies as we wait for

59
00:03:30,880 --> 00:03:31,840
Speaker 3: a Merit's decision.

60
00:03:32,400 --> 00:03:36,680
Speaker 1: So Judge Dowdy wrote, the present case arguably involves the

61
00:03:36,680 --> 00:03:40,640
Speaker 1: most massive attack against free speech in United States history.

62
00:03:41,440 --> 00:03:44,880
Speaker 1: How does he justify that or back that up.

63
00:03:45,720 --> 00:03:50,280
Speaker 3: So again it's coming from the extensive evidence that was

64
00:03:50,360 --> 00:03:53,440
Speaker 3: discussed throughout the opinion. The judge is looking at things like,

65
00:03:53,760 --> 00:03:56,080
Speaker 3: you know, emails that were sent from Biden.

66
00:03:55,840 --> 00:03:58,240
Speaker 2: Administration officials to the social media.

67
00:03:58,000 --> 00:04:04,160
Speaker 3: Companies strongly suggesting wrongly wording the government's request to remove content. Additionally,

68
00:04:04,240 --> 00:04:09,000
Speaker 3: the court cited to the attempts by Biden administration or

69
00:04:09,040 --> 00:04:13,760
Speaker 3: the suggestions by the Biden administration to impose regulations such

70
00:04:13,800 --> 00:04:17,720
Speaker 3: as amending or repealing Section two thirty, which of course says,

71
00:04:17,839 --> 00:04:21,400
Speaker 3: as you know, is the immunity that these services rely

72
00:04:21,600 --> 00:04:24,200
Speaker 3: on in order to do content moderation in the first place.

73
00:04:24,360 --> 00:04:28,080
Speaker 3: So these types of suggestions and what could be perceived

74
00:04:28,120 --> 00:04:30,840
Speaker 3: as threats is what the court was really honing in

75
00:04:30,880 --> 00:04:32,880
Speaker 3: on when it was making a decision that it thinks

76
00:04:32,880 --> 00:04:36,679
Speaker 3: there is enough evidence there to suggest that state action occurred.

77
00:04:36,920 --> 00:04:39,880
Speaker 1: So what about the free speech rights of the federal

78
00:04:39,920 --> 00:04:44,160
Speaker 1: officials who are allegedly making these comments to the social

79
00:04:44,160 --> 00:04:45,000
Speaker 1: media companies.

80
00:04:45,680 --> 00:04:48,920
Speaker 3: There's a question about the beech rights of the government,

81
00:04:49,080 --> 00:04:52,560
Speaker 3: which is arguably tricky when it comes to drawing a

82
00:04:52,600 --> 00:04:57,160
Speaker 3: line between when the government can communicate versus when that communication.

83
00:04:56,680 --> 00:04:58,200
Speaker 2: Arises to the level of.

84
00:04:58,440 --> 00:05:01,320
Speaker 3: Significant colleresion impermissible state action.

85
00:05:01,680 --> 00:05:04,280
Speaker 2: So that's one consideration. But there's also another.

86
00:05:04,040 --> 00:05:07,760
Speaker 3: Important consideration here, and that is the First Amendment rights

87
00:05:07,760 --> 00:05:10,279
Speaker 3: of the companies as well, not just the First Amendment

88
00:05:10,360 --> 00:05:13,360
Speaker 3: rights of the companies to make decisions as to what

89
00:05:13,440 --> 00:05:15,719
Speaker 3: kind of content they choose to carry or not carry

90
00:05:15,720 --> 00:05:19,120
Speaker 3: on their services, but potentially also a right to petition

91
00:05:19,200 --> 00:05:22,640
Speaker 3: the government as well. These companies have a right to

92
00:05:22,720 --> 00:05:27,160
Speaker 3: communicate with their government representatives when it comes to trying

93
00:05:27,200 --> 00:05:31,440
Speaker 3: to become informed to make decisions about some of this edgier,

94
00:05:31,480 --> 00:05:33,720
Speaker 3: trickier content that they're making decisions on.

95
00:05:33,960 --> 00:05:35,159
Speaker 2: So it goes both ways.

96
00:05:35,480 --> 00:05:38,880
Speaker 3: The line is less clear for government officials, but it's

97
00:05:38,920 --> 00:05:41,800
Speaker 3: pretty glaring for social media companies when it comes to

98
00:05:41,880 --> 00:05:45,719
Speaker 3: their own engagement, their own voluntary engagement with government.

99
00:05:46,120 --> 00:05:48,920
Speaker 1: Was it just the Justice Department that was defending this

100
00:05:49,200 --> 00:05:51,840
Speaker 1: and could you just summarize their argument the.

101
00:05:51,760 --> 00:05:55,560
Speaker 3: Biden administration, the defendants in this case were arguing that

102
00:05:55,960 --> 00:05:59,160
Speaker 3: their conduct, of course, does not arise to significant encouragement

103
00:05:59,240 --> 00:06:01,640
Speaker 3: or coercion. To the extent that they're making that argument,

104
00:06:01,680 --> 00:06:04,440
Speaker 3: they are suggesting that at all times they have requested

105
00:06:04,560 --> 00:06:09,080
Speaker 3: or reported communications reported content to the social media platforms,

106
00:06:09,240 --> 00:06:12,280
Speaker 3: but importantly, the decision to remove content has always been

107
00:06:12,320 --> 00:06:15,159
Speaker 3: left up to the social media platforms. So the government

108
00:06:15,200 --> 00:06:19,000
Speaker 3: is essentially arguing that simply submitting request to the social

109
00:06:19,080 --> 00:06:22,520
Speaker 3: media companies about content is not enough to arise the

110
00:06:22,600 --> 00:06:25,360
Speaker 3: level of coercion that we have seen the Supreme Court

111
00:06:25,400 --> 00:06:28,120
Speaker 3: and other courts before determined for state action.

112
00:06:28,839 --> 00:06:31,800
Speaker 1: So is it unusual it took this judge a year

113
00:06:32,080 --> 00:06:32,960
Speaker 1: to rule on this.

114
00:06:33,560 --> 00:06:35,760
Speaker 3: I don't think so. I wouldn't be able to speak

115
00:06:35,760 --> 00:06:38,760
Speaker 3: to the decision making that took place. For this to

116
00:06:39,120 --> 00:06:41,600
Speaker 3: take a year, I think state action it speaks to

117
00:06:41,680 --> 00:06:44,880
Speaker 3: the complications that is the state action doctrine.

118
00:06:45,279 --> 00:06:46,240
Speaker 2: Doctrine itself is.

119
00:06:46,200 --> 00:06:51,800
Speaker 3: Heavily convoluted and heavily contradictory and conflicting with the cases

120
00:06:51,839 --> 00:06:53,000
Speaker 3: that we've seen in the past.

121
00:06:53,440 --> 00:06:57,680
Speaker 1: The bind administration asked the judge to put a temporary

122
00:06:57,760 --> 00:07:01,799
Speaker 1: hold on the order while it appeals to the Fifth Circuit.

123
00:07:02,279 --> 00:07:06,719
Speaker 1: The administration argued that the terms of the injunction were

124
00:07:06,839 --> 00:07:10,360
Speaker 1: overbroad and ambiguous, saying it would leave it up to

125
00:07:10,400 --> 00:07:13,960
Speaker 1: every individual agency official to have to figure out if

126
00:07:14,040 --> 00:07:18,720
Speaker 1: certain online speech was or wasn't constitutionally protected. Do you

127
00:07:18,760 --> 00:07:21,920
Speaker 1: think that was a good argument after reviewing the judges order.

128
00:07:22,240 --> 00:07:25,440
Speaker 3: Yes, absolutely, As you just said, what's concerning in this

129
00:07:25,560 --> 00:07:29,280
Speaker 3: case is that the judge's decision to restrict contact between

130
00:07:29,320 --> 00:07:33,880
Speaker 3: the administration and social media platforms appears to be overly broad, arbitrary,

131
00:07:34,080 --> 00:07:38,240
Speaker 3: and contradictory. You know, the Trump appointed judge here directed

132
00:07:38,280 --> 00:07:42,280
Speaker 3: federal officials to stop notifying social media companies and outside

133
00:07:42,320 --> 00:07:46,040
Speaker 3: re researchers of problematic content. Of course, while that order

134
00:07:46,160 --> 00:07:49,920
Speaker 3: made some exceptions, as we've discussed, for crime, national security,

135
00:07:50,000 --> 00:07:53,520
Speaker 3: and attempts to suppress voter rights, a lot of these

136
00:07:53,560 --> 00:07:56,560
Speaker 3: exemptions are in fact contradictory. So, for example, the exemption

137
00:07:56,640 --> 00:08:01,400
Speaker 3: allowing the government to exercise permissible public government speech conflicts

138
00:08:01,400 --> 00:08:04,679
Speaker 3: with the judge's conclusion that statements by the Surgeon General

139
00:08:04,800 --> 00:08:07,640
Speaker 3: and the White House Press Secretary violated the First Amendment.

140
00:08:08,040 --> 00:08:09,640
Speaker 2: As you know, there's.

141
00:08:09,280 --> 00:08:12,080
Speaker 3: All sorts of content that is on the borders when

142
00:08:12,120 --> 00:08:15,680
Speaker 3: it comes to criminal content, national security, etc. And so

143
00:08:15,960 --> 00:08:19,360
Speaker 3: the order is essentially positioned companies either speak with the

144
00:08:19,400 --> 00:08:20,760
Speaker 3: government or don't speak with the government.

145
00:08:20,800 --> 00:08:22,160
Speaker 2: But these exemptions.

146
00:08:21,640 --> 00:08:24,040
Speaker 3: Are not going to be enough for there to be

147
00:08:24,440 --> 00:08:26,880
Speaker 3: a clear decision as to when it is appropriate for

148
00:08:26,920 --> 00:08:29,280
Speaker 3: government and social media companies to interact.

149
00:08:29,680 --> 00:08:32,800
Speaker 1: The Biden administration had asked the judge to stay his

150
00:08:32,960 --> 00:08:37,160
Speaker 1: nationwide injunction while they pursue an appeal to the Fifth Circuit.

151
00:08:37,400 --> 00:08:40,480
Speaker 1: Judge Daddy refused to do that. I mean, it's not

152
00:08:40,520 --> 00:08:44,040
Speaker 1: only that he denied the request for a stay, but

153
00:08:44,120 --> 00:08:47,800
Speaker 1: he even denied the alternative requests for a seven day

154
00:08:47,920 --> 00:08:50,880
Speaker 1: pause while it asked the Appeals Court to step in.

155
00:08:51,160 --> 00:08:52,400
Speaker 1: That just seems mean to me.

156
00:08:54,120 --> 00:08:57,360
Speaker 3: I read his order as vindictive, And again it doesn't

157
00:08:57,400 --> 00:08:59,839
Speaker 3: surprise me only because, well, the same judge who he

158
00:09:00,320 --> 00:09:03,640
Speaker 3: down the injunction order, who is now deciding whether to

159
00:09:03,679 --> 00:09:08,720
Speaker 3: stay his injunction. And from the original memo supporting the

160
00:09:09,760 --> 00:09:13,720
Speaker 3: the injunction, you could pretty much tell that this judge

161
00:09:13,760 --> 00:09:18,200
Speaker 3: has already determined without more that this is impermissible state

162
00:09:18,240 --> 00:09:21,880
Speaker 3: action by the Biden administration. And it feels more heavily

163
00:09:21,920 --> 00:09:25,800
Speaker 3: political than legal here, so I am not surprised by

164
00:09:26,040 --> 00:09:28,160
Speaker 3: the judge's rejection.

165
00:09:27,800 --> 00:09:28,320
Speaker 2: Of this day.

166
00:09:28,600 --> 00:09:32,840
Speaker 1: Here did Judge Dowdy add any new reasons for keeping

167
00:09:32,880 --> 00:09:35,640
Speaker 1: the injunction in place, or did he basically say it's

168
00:09:35,679 --> 00:09:38,280
Speaker 1: what I said before it's not as and it's not

169
00:09:38,400 --> 00:09:40,079
Speaker 1: as broad as it appears.

170
00:09:40,520 --> 00:09:41,160
Speaker 2: It's the latter.

171
00:09:41,360 --> 00:09:45,800
Speaker 3: So Dody kind of stirked hercularly addresses the DOJ's concerns

172
00:09:45,880 --> 00:09:48,319
Speaker 3: regarding the overbreadth of the order, saying, you know, the

173
00:09:48,440 --> 00:09:51,079
Speaker 3: order prohibits something that defendants have no legal right to do,

174
00:09:51,160 --> 00:09:54,840
Speaker 3: which is contacting social media companies for the purposes of urging, encouraging,

175
00:09:54,880 --> 00:09:58,800
Speaker 3: or pressuring companies to engage in content moderation. But it

176
00:09:58,840 --> 00:10:04,160
Speaker 3: doesn't address DOJ's arguments that all of the examples provided

177
00:10:04,880 --> 00:10:10,880
Speaker 3: in the complaint do not arise to urging encouraging coercion

178
00:10:11,280 --> 00:10:14,640
Speaker 3: significant encouragement that the court is supposed to assess here.

179
00:10:15,040 --> 00:10:18,040
Speaker 3: So it's exactly that the judge did not issue any

180
00:10:18,120 --> 00:10:23,240
Speaker 3: new reasoning in rejecting their stay application and instead just

181
00:10:24,080 --> 00:10:26,920
Speaker 3: kind of used circular logic to explain why the order

182
00:10:26,960 --> 00:10:27,800
Speaker 3: should stay.

183
00:10:28,320 --> 00:10:32,120
Speaker 1: And within hours the DOJ filed an appeal with the

184
00:10:32,160 --> 00:10:35,520
Speaker 1: Fifth Circuit. Tell us a little bit about what the

185
00:10:35,559 --> 00:10:36,760
Speaker 1: DOJ argued.

186
00:10:37,240 --> 00:10:42,920
Speaker 3: So the DJ's request for this limited stay highlighted several concerns,

187
00:10:42,960 --> 00:10:46,600
Speaker 3: including the District Court's interference with the executive branches powers

188
00:10:46,760 --> 00:10:50,200
Speaker 3: and duties to communicate with the American public, the plaintiff

189
00:10:50,280 --> 00:10:53,720
Speaker 3: lack of standing as we've discussed before the district courts

190
00:10:53,800 --> 00:10:58,439
Speaker 3: in precise state action analysis regarding coercion and significant encouragement,

191
00:10:58,840 --> 00:11:00,679
Speaker 3: and the overbroad in size.

192
00:11:00,480 --> 00:11:04,400
Speaker 2: And imbalanced injunction order as well. The DJ also.

193
00:11:04,240 --> 00:11:07,200
Speaker 3: Noted that they would seek an emergency application for stay

194
00:11:07,280 --> 00:11:10,679
Speaker 3: from the Supreme Court should the Fifth Circuit reject this request.

195
00:11:11,160 --> 00:11:15,200
Speaker 1: The DOJ said that this order puts the judiciary in

196
00:11:15,280 --> 00:11:21,000
Speaker 1: the untenable position of superintending the executive branches communications. I mean,

197
00:11:21,240 --> 00:11:24,840
Speaker 1: just how would this injunction even be enforced?

198
00:11:25,559 --> 00:11:28,840
Speaker 3: That's exactly it. The executive branch has a duty to

199
00:11:28,880 --> 00:11:33,360
Speaker 3: communicate broadly with the American public about how they can mitigate.

200
00:11:33,000 --> 00:11:36,160
Speaker 2: Threats to the nation, as the DJ discussed.

201
00:11:35,679 --> 00:11:39,680
Speaker 3: And government officials are also permitted to express views about

202
00:11:39,720 --> 00:11:43,520
Speaker 3: the world, including whether certain communications, such as from social

203
00:11:43,520 --> 00:11:46,760
Speaker 3: media companies or news publishers, are false and harmful.

204
00:11:47,280 --> 00:11:48,800
Speaker 2: So, given that.

205
00:11:48,679 --> 00:11:52,840
Speaker 3: Sort of latitude of the executive branch's duties to advocate

206
00:11:52,880 --> 00:11:55,640
Speaker 3: for indefend zone policies, there's a reason why we've seen

207
00:11:55,640 --> 00:11:58,199
Speaker 3: the courts, including the Supreme Court, set such a high

208
00:11:58,240 --> 00:12:02,839
Speaker 3: threshold for when advocacy be comes coercion or significant encouragement,

209
00:12:03,120 --> 00:12:06,920
Speaker 3: and here the injunction order impermissively interferes with that duty.

210
00:12:07,280 --> 00:12:10,480
Speaker 3: So in order to enforce it, there would again have

211
00:12:10,600 --> 00:12:13,640
Speaker 3: to be a threshold question as to whether the communications

212
00:12:13,679 --> 00:12:17,560
Speaker 3: prohibited by the order actually rise to this level of

213
00:12:17,559 --> 00:12:21,040
Speaker 3: state action, in order to determine whether the communications meet

214
00:12:21,080 --> 00:12:23,800
Speaker 3: some of the exemptions in the doj order.

215
00:12:24,000 --> 00:12:26,240
Speaker 2: But again, there's already.

216
00:12:25,880 --> 00:12:28,960
Speaker 3: An incredibly high standard for these communications, and this order

217
00:12:29,000 --> 00:12:30,960
Speaker 3: is conflicting with that standard.

218
00:12:31,559 --> 00:12:34,160
Speaker 1: I think it seems pretty likely that the Fifth Circuit

219
00:12:34,360 --> 00:12:39,319
Speaker 1: is going to grant the stay for several reasons, but

220
00:12:39,400 --> 00:12:42,360
Speaker 1: also because it may be sort of chastened. In the

221
00:12:42,440 --> 00:12:45,360
Speaker 1: last term, the Supreme Court reverse seven out of nine

222
00:12:45,480 --> 00:12:48,160
Speaker 1: rulings from the Fifth Circuit, so I'm not sure it

223
00:12:48,240 --> 00:12:50,520
Speaker 1: wants another case to go up to the Supreme Court.

224
00:12:50,760 --> 00:12:54,640
Speaker 3: I would actually be surprised if the Fifth Circuit did

225
00:12:54,679 --> 00:12:58,320
Speaker 3: not overturn the injunction here, only because from what we've

226
00:12:58,360 --> 00:13:01,000
Speaker 3: seen again with this Fifth Circuit it with regards to

227
00:13:01,080 --> 00:13:04,360
Speaker 3: the First Amendment case in the net Choice in Ccia

228
00:13:04,520 --> 00:13:09,440
Speaker 3: lawsuit regarding First Amendment rights of the services to carry

229
00:13:09,440 --> 00:13:12,840
Speaker 3: specific content, I would actually suspect that the Fifth Circuit

230
00:13:12,880 --> 00:13:15,760
Speaker 3: would uphold this injunction based on some of the similar

231
00:13:15,800 --> 00:13:19,920
Speaker 3: reasoning that they chose to uphold the HB twenty.

232
00:13:20,160 --> 00:13:21,040
Speaker 2: Law in Texas.

233
00:13:22,160 --> 00:13:28,240
Speaker 1: Have courts been playing an oversized role in mediating fights

234
00:13:28,679 --> 00:13:32,520
Speaker 1: over how the tech giants moderate what goes on their platforms?

235
00:13:32,559 --> 00:13:34,680
Speaker 1: I mean, should this be the role of the courts?

236
00:13:35,120 --> 00:13:36,960
Speaker 2: I mean, that's the interesting question.

237
00:13:37,080 --> 00:13:39,080
Speaker 3: It kind of gets to the heart of this decision

238
00:13:39,160 --> 00:13:43,680
Speaker 3: because in giving this order, the Court itself is making

239
00:13:43,679 --> 00:13:47,040
Speaker 3: decisions about what types of speech are acceptable and what

240
00:13:47,120 --> 00:13:49,600
Speaker 3: types of speech are not acceptable. Again, we're talking about

241
00:13:49,600 --> 00:13:53,000
Speaker 3: with exemptions that the order presents, and so that begs

242
00:13:53,000 --> 00:13:57,120
Speaker 3: the question, then, is the court also improperly weighing into

243
00:13:57,640 --> 00:14:01,080
Speaker 3: editorial discretion when it makes those decision when it sides

244
00:14:01,120 --> 00:14:03,959
Speaker 3: with the plaintiffs in this case? And if so, then

245
00:14:04,080 --> 00:14:08,720
Speaker 3: is the government the courts are they informissively using state

246
00:14:08,800 --> 00:14:12,959
Speaker 3: action to enable censorship on these social media platforms?

247
00:14:13,320 --> 00:14:15,760
Speaker 2: And I would venture to say yes in this case certainly.

248
00:14:15,800 --> 00:14:19,200
Speaker 1: So let's just talk about the Supreme Court for a moment.

249
00:14:19,320 --> 00:14:23,520
Speaker 1: Because the Supreme Court delayed a review of Texas and

250
00:14:23,600 --> 00:14:28,280
Speaker 1: Florida laws that would allow users to sue online platforms

251
00:14:28,360 --> 00:14:31,800
Speaker 1: for alleged political censorship. Does it seem like the Court

252
00:14:31,880 --> 00:14:34,520
Speaker 1: will take that up. I'm wondering what the delay is.

253
00:14:34,600 --> 00:14:37,640
Speaker 1: It seems like a case that's destined to be at

254
00:14:37,640 --> 00:14:38,800
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court.

255
00:14:39,000 --> 00:14:41,480
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, reading the tea leaves here, I think

256
00:14:41,520 --> 00:14:44,280
Speaker 3: that the Court pretty much has to take the Net

257
00:14:44,320 --> 00:14:47,640
Speaker 3: Choice NCCIA cases up in Texas and Florida. You know,

258
00:14:47,720 --> 00:14:50,320
Speaker 3: I think there was a lot on the docket, especially

259
00:14:50,360 --> 00:14:53,000
Speaker 3: with the Gonzales case and the Tamina case and some

260
00:14:53,080 --> 00:14:55,640
Speaker 3: of the other First Amendment cases we saw earlier this term,

261
00:14:55,960 --> 00:14:58,320
Speaker 3: and so I think the push to have the Solicitor

262
00:14:58,400 --> 00:15:01,400
Speaker 3: General way in for the Texas Florida cases was a

263
00:15:01,880 --> 00:15:04,960
Speaker 3: maneuver to buy time. But this case is teed up

264
00:15:05,080 --> 00:15:07,560
Speaker 3: between the different state.

265
00:15:07,480 --> 00:15:09,560
Speaker 2: Regulations that we've seen come out with.

266
00:15:09,440 --> 00:15:13,040
Speaker 3: Regards to forcing services to carry content. Now we have

267
00:15:13,120 --> 00:15:17,000
Speaker 3: this bided injunction, it seems glaring that the Court will

268
00:15:17,040 --> 00:15:20,320
Speaker 3: have to make a decision about regulations that attempt to

269
00:15:20,560 --> 00:15:23,800
Speaker 3: force social media companies private entities to carry First Amendment

270
00:15:23,800 --> 00:15:24,600
Speaker 3: protected speech.

271
00:15:25,120 --> 00:15:27,440
Speaker 1: This is going to the Fifth Circuit, which is one

272
00:15:27,440 --> 00:15:31,600
Speaker 1: of the most conservative circuits in the country, So who

273
00:15:31,640 --> 00:15:33,800
Speaker 1: knows what they'll do, But would that be a case

274
00:15:33,800 --> 00:15:35,240
Speaker 1: for the Supreme Court as well.

275
00:15:35,720 --> 00:15:38,160
Speaker 3: I absolutely could see the DOJ pushing this to the

276
00:15:38,160 --> 00:15:41,360
Speaker 3: Supreme Court because again, the order itself is so broad,

277
00:15:41,600 --> 00:15:45,520
Speaker 3: and it is creating this hostile environment for both social

278
00:15:45,560 --> 00:15:48,520
Speaker 3: media companies and government actors when it comes to their

279
00:15:48,600 --> 00:15:52,680
Speaker 3: ability to collaborate and info gather. But it's also again

280
00:15:53,000 --> 00:15:56,000
Speaker 3: it brings a lot of First Amendment concerns, as we've discussed,

281
00:15:56,040 --> 00:15:58,800
Speaker 3: for the government actors themselves, but also for the companies.

282
00:15:59,160 --> 00:16:00,960
Speaker 3: At the end of the day, if we reach a

283
00:16:00,960 --> 00:16:04,920
Speaker 3: merits decision that says that the government does act improperly

284
00:16:05,040 --> 00:16:07,720
Speaker 3: when it sends requests to take down content to social

285
00:16:07,720 --> 00:16:11,040
Speaker 3: media companies, that content that the social media companies removed

286
00:16:11,560 --> 00:16:14,920
Speaker 3: could very well be considered improper state action and then

287
00:16:14,960 --> 00:16:17,960
Speaker 3: those companies would be forced to reinstate that content. So

288
00:16:18,000 --> 00:16:20,960
Speaker 3: we also have some must carry issues that are very similar.

289
00:16:20,720 --> 00:16:23,200
Speaker 2: To Texas Florida cases in this case as well.

290
00:16:23,680 --> 00:16:26,720
Speaker 1: Also, is there a question about the state ags having

291
00:16:26,880 --> 00:16:29,840
Speaker 1: standing to sue here? Why do they have standing here?

292
00:16:30,520 --> 00:16:31,760
Speaker 2: This is a complicated question.

293
00:16:32,760 --> 00:16:36,840
Speaker 3: So we're talking about the First Amendment rights of US

294
00:16:36,920 --> 00:16:42,120
Speaker 3: citizens and in states like Missouri, for example, in Louisiana where.

295
00:16:41,960 --> 00:16:42,960
Speaker 2: These cases arose.

296
00:16:43,360 --> 00:16:48,240
Speaker 3: The Fourteenth Amendment is what provisions our constitutional First Amendment

297
00:16:48,280 --> 00:16:50,479
Speaker 3: rights and other rights that are granted by the constitutions

298
00:16:50,680 --> 00:16:53,520
Speaker 3: for the states as well. And so with regards to

299
00:16:53,560 --> 00:16:58,800
Speaker 3: a question of state action and impermissively abridging the rights

300
00:16:58,840 --> 00:17:01,680
Speaker 3: of the users who have had their content removed, whether

301
00:17:01,720 --> 00:17:04,200
Speaker 3: that be in this case COVID nineteen content or other

302
00:17:04,280 --> 00:17:07,240
Speaker 3: types of content. That is sort of the idea that

303
00:17:06,920 --> 00:17:09,840
Speaker 3: you know that the AG is pursuing with regards to

304
00:17:09,920 --> 00:17:11,960
Speaker 3: standing in this case, and the Court seem to agree

305
00:17:12,000 --> 00:17:12,640
Speaker 3: on that as well.

306
00:17:13,080 --> 00:17:16,120
Speaker 1: Can you talk at all about the case before the

307
00:17:16,160 --> 00:17:19,840
Speaker 1: Supreme Court whether elected officials violate the First Amendment when

308
00:17:19,840 --> 00:17:22,600
Speaker 1: they block people from seeing their social media accounts.

309
00:17:22,880 --> 00:17:25,720
Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely so in both of those cases, I believe

310
00:17:25,720 --> 00:17:28,360
Speaker 3: that's the o'hanley case and the lin Key cases.

311
00:17:28,400 --> 00:17:29,600
Speaker 2: In both of those cases they.

312
00:17:29,520 --> 00:17:35,480
Speaker 3: Regard government actors removing blocking content and accounts of private

313
00:17:35,680 --> 00:17:39,280
Speaker 3: US citizens, And it's very similar to this case again

314
00:17:39,480 --> 00:17:42,480
Speaker 3: with regard to the government has taken an action in

315
00:17:42,520 --> 00:17:44,240
Speaker 3: that case. And again it's really important to keep in

316
00:17:44,320 --> 00:17:46,960
Speaker 3: mind here in both cases, in the Spring Court cases

317
00:17:46,960 --> 00:17:49,560
Speaker 3: and in this injunction order, we're not talking about the

318
00:17:49,600 --> 00:17:52,280
Speaker 3: conduct of the social media companies. Though the conduct of

319
00:17:52,320 --> 00:17:54,280
Speaker 3: social media companies can be implicated.

320
00:17:53,960 --> 00:17:54,919
Speaker 2: In all three cases.

321
00:17:54,920 --> 00:18:00,800
Speaker 3: Here we are talking specifically about government actions on speech. Courts,

322
00:18:00,920 --> 00:18:04,920
Speaker 3: you know, in the past, have long recognized that state actors,

323
00:18:05,000 --> 00:18:08,560
Speaker 3: whether they are operating a social media account under their

324
00:18:08,640 --> 00:18:12,520
Speaker 3: official title or operating it as a personal account, are

325
00:18:12,560 --> 00:18:17,160
Speaker 3: not able to block content, block accounts remove content that

326
00:18:17,240 --> 00:18:20,320
Speaker 3: comes from private US citizens, as this would be a

327
00:18:20,400 --> 00:18:22,640
Speaker 3: violation of the US citizen's right to speech, but also

328
00:18:22,680 --> 00:18:24,879
Speaker 3: the right to have access to and protest.

329
00:18:24,560 --> 00:18:27,200
Speaker 2: The government as well. So similar questions are.

330
00:18:27,040 --> 00:18:29,840
Speaker 3: In front of the Supreme Court in the state actor cases.

331
00:18:30,280 --> 00:18:31,760
Speaker 2: What will be interesting is.

332
00:18:31,720 --> 00:18:35,600
Speaker 3: To see if the Supreme Court agrees that government action

333
00:18:36,000 --> 00:18:38,440
Speaker 3: here was impermissible when it comes to the government's own

334
00:18:38,440 --> 00:18:42,160
Speaker 3: decisions to remove content or block some of these accounts,

335
00:18:42,400 --> 00:18:45,680
Speaker 3: what that will again mean for the social media companies.

336
00:18:45,760 --> 00:18:49,480
Speaker 1: I'm wondering, is this an area where Congress should be

337
00:18:49,840 --> 00:18:52,520
Speaker 1: taking some role instead of leaving it to the courts.

338
00:18:53,119 --> 00:18:57,320
Speaker 3: So I think the Constitution itself and existing policy that

339
00:18:57,359 --> 00:19:00,880
Speaker 3: we have already accounts for this. Again, the First Amendment,

340
00:19:01,160 --> 00:19:06,040
Speaker 3: it's clear in that it restrains government and state actors

341
00:19:06,119 --> 00:19:10,320
Speaker 3: from abridging the right to speech of private US citizens.

342
00:19:10,680 --> 00:19:14,919
Speaker 3: We have a lot of state action doctrine already that

343
00:19:15,520 --> 00:19:19,280
Speaker 3: gets into the weeds of when broadcasters and publishers do

344
00:19:19,600 --> 00:19:24,480
Speaker 3: act jointly or are encouraged by state actors to abridge

345
00:19:24,520 --> 00:19:27,479
Speaker 3: those First Amendment rights. So it's not likely that we

346
00:19:27,520 --> 00:19:29,040
Speaker 3: need Congress to intervene here.

347
00:19:29,440 --> 00:19:31,680
Speaker 2: However, this does present.

348
00:19:31,480 --> 00:19:34,920
Speaker 3: Sort of a nuanced situation for state action doctrine and

349
00:19:35,040 --> 00:19:36,399
Speaker 3: for the First Amendment.

350
00:19:36,359 --> 00:19:38,560
Speaker 2: That the courts should be able to resolve.

351
00:19:38,720 --> 00:19:42,000
Speaker 3: In the o'hanley case, the Linky case, and even here

352
00:19:42,200 --> 00:19:44,560
Speaker 3: in the recent injunction order, are there.

353
00:19:44,480 --> 00:19:47,000
Speaker 1: Broader implications to Judge Dowdy's order.

354
00:19:47,320 --> 00:19:50,760
Speaker 3: The order could open the door for plaintiffs to renew

355
00:19:50,800 --> 00:19:54,760
Speaker 3: some of their state actor arguments against social media companies,

356
00:19:54,920 --> 00:19:57,200
Speaker 3: plaintiffs being not just the ones in this case, but

357
00:19:57,240 --> 00:20:00,600
Speaker 3: as we've seen in previous cases where you know, plate

358
00:20:00,720 --> 00:20:03,240
Speaker 3: just try to work around section p thirty, you work

359
00:20:03,240 --> 00:20:04,119
Speaker 3: around the First Amendment.

360
00:20:04,200 --> 00:20:05,560
Speaker 2: By suggessing that content.

361
00:20:05,280 --> 00:20:09,440
Speaker 3: Removal was that of state action, it really could open

362
00:20:09,520 --> 00:20:11,480
Speaker 3: the door for them to renew some of those arguments

363
00:20:11,560 --> 00:20:14,280
Speaker 3: down the road, you know, suggesting that content removals were

364
00:20:14,280 --> 00:20:17,720
Speaker 3: based on informiscible coercion from the state, and should future

365
00:20:17,760 --> 00:20:21,960
Speaker 3: courts determine content moderation was the result of informiscible state actions.

366
00:20:22,000 --> 00:20:24,960
Speaker 3: Social media companies again maybe forced to reinstate accounts and

367
00:20:25,119 --> 00:20:28,520
Speaker 3: content against their preferences, which could lead to the reinstatement

368
00:20:28,640 --> 00:20:33,439
Speaker 3: of pernicious misinformation and disinformation, hate speech, and more so,

369
00:20:33,480 --> 00:20:36,240
Speaker 3: the implications of this case are much broader than just

370
00:20:36,280 --> 00:20:39,639
Speaker 3: can the government communicate with social media? It goes beyond that,

371
00:20:40,000 --> 00:20:42,040
Speaker 3: and it really it comes down to the kinds of

372
00:20:42,040 --> 00:20:45,040
Speaker 3: speech that private actors such as the social media companies

373
00:20:45,280 --> 00:20:46,320
Speaker 3: will be forced to carry.

374
00:20:47,119 --> 00:20:49,320
Speaker 1: Well. Now have to keep watch on what the Fifth

375
00:20:49,320 --> 00:20:52,000
Speaker 1: Circuit does. Thanks so much for being on the show, Jess.

376
00:20:52,359 --> 00:20:56,400
Speaker 1: That's Jess Myers's Legal Advocacy Council at the Chamber of Progress.

377
00:20:56,760 --> 00:20:59,080
Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

378
00:20:59,359 --> 00:21:01,720
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

379
00:21:01,800 --> 00:21:06,080
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

380
00:21:06,240 --> 00:21:11,280
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

381
00:21:11,680 --> 00:21:14,280
Speaker 1: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

382
00:21:14,320 --> 00:21:18,240
Speaker 1: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

383
00:21:18,359 --> 00:21:19,960
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg