Earlier this month, a federal court of appeals has delivered a significant ruling addressing freedom of speech in the digital age.
The court determined that the White House, surgeon general, CDC, and FBI had “likely violated the First Amendment” by pressuring social media platforms to censor individuals expressing skepticism regarding COVID-19. Among those targeted was Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, an esteemed epidemiologist from Stanford University.
Dr. Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine, economics, and health research policy at Stanford, played a prominent role in the Great Barrington Declaration, a document co-authored in the fall of 2020 by professors from Harvard and Oxford.
Advertisement - story continues below
This declaration advocated for a strategy of “focused protection” during the pandemic, emphasizing safeguarding the most vulnerable while allowing others to carry on with some semblance of normalcy, as opposed to imposing widespread lockdowns.
However, as Dr. Bhattacharya recalls, their scientific viewpoints were met with swift and sweeping censorship. Social media giants, such as Google and Facebook, de-prioritized and even removed their content, thrusting them into a maelstrom of content moderation, often at the behest of the federal government.
Stop the censors, sign up to get today's top stories delivered right to your inbox
A three-judge panel based in New Orleans, Louisiana, examined the situation and determined that federal authorities had indeed pressured social media platforms to stifle specific perspectives on the pandemic. These pressures were accompanied by veiled threats of regulatory repercussions if the platforms did not comply.
Dr. Bhattacharya aptly likened this governmental influence over social media to historical attempts to suppress the printing press during its inception, when printed books posed a threat to established powers.
Advertisement - story continues below
In his view, the battle for control over social media platforms today parallels that historical struggle, with powerful entities seeking to curtail the ease with which individuals can express their ideas.
The recent ruling, dated September 8, affirmed a prior decision by US District Judge Terry Doughty from July 4. Judge Doughty’s initial ruling found that federal agencies had orchestrated a long-running campaign to ensure that social media censorship aligned with the government’s preferred narratives. The platforms, under duress, altered their moderation policies accordingly.
Dr. Bhattacharya expressed particular excitement about the initial July 4th ruling, seeing it as a message that resonated with the principles of free speech. Subsequently, the Biden administration appealed the case to the Supreme Court, a move that was anticipated by Dr. Bhattacharya. However, he believes it’s unlikely that the Supreme Court will overturn the Fifth Circuit’s decision.
For Dr. Bhattacharya, this case transcends the specific issues of COVID-19 and lockdowns. It represents a landmark battle against government encroachment on social media, a battle with implications for broader matters related to free expression in the digital era.
As he aptly put it, “This new technology has created enormous opportunities for people to participate in debate in the public square, and I hope that this is the beginning of a legal infrastructure that enables that to happen — rather than the opposite, which is a dark age where the government gets to decide what’s true and what’s allowed to be said.”
