# Judge limits Biden administration contact with social media firms {Overturned June 26,2024} **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [July 4, 2023, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-overturned-june-26-2024/986583 "2023-07-04T21:17:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2023, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-overturned-june-26-2024/986583/21 "2023-07-05T15:30:27Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > …the government probably is overstepping in asking that such things be removed from social media. Is there a distinction to be made between “asking” and “demanding” or “forcing?” ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2023, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-overturned-june-26-2024/986583/22 "2023-07-05T15:57:10Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Is there a distinction to be made between “asking” and “demanding” or “forcing?” I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not sure what the **legal** distinction is. If the federal government approached **me** to ask me to ask me to do something, I’d absolutely feel compelled to do it, because it’s the government. If they asked me to stop doing something I had the right to do, then I’d absolutely feel like my rights were being infringed upon. IIRC, some of the “asking” that was being done of social media companies in the recent past involved dragging them in front of Congress on television and grilling them about their actions. So, I imagine it somewhat depends on how you’re being asked. Often there is no difference between being asked and being intimidated into compliance simply based on who is asking you. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2023, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-overturned-june-26-2024/986583/23 "2023-07-05T16:03:41Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not sure what the **legal** distinction is. If the federal government approached **me** to ask me to ask me to do something, I’d absolutely feel compelled to do it, because it’s the government. If they asked me to stop doing something I had the right to do, then I’d absolutely feel like my rights were being infringed upon. Well, in this case they are approaching big corporations and not an individual. And we have examples of the government asking private business to not do something and they ignored them (Pentagon Papers case leaps to mind and led to the supreme court banning the government from “prior restraint.” The government asked The New York Times to not publish those papers and NYT did it anyway.) ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2023, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-overturned-june-26-2024/986583/24 "2023-07-05T16:15:27Z")
The irony is that Donald Trump signed an executive order that attacked social media companies for labeling his communications as false or misleading, and in his words it was to “defend free speech”. The courts said nothing at the time. But what he did seems in my eyes to be a clear violation along the lines of what this federal judge is attacking the Biden administration over. > **[Trump signs executive order targeting social media companies | CNN Politics](https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/politics/trump-twitter-social-media-executive-order/index.html)** > > President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeting social media companies on Thursday, days after Twitter called two of his tweets “potentially misleading.” Maybe the Democrats should have taken this to court the way that the Republicans did later. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2023, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-overturned-june-26-2024/986583/25 "2023-07-05T16:20:12Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > Maybe the Democrats should have taken this to court the way that the Republicans did later. I’d say democrats bringing this case would fail on standing but the recent supreme court decisions show they care nothing for standing. So…maybe they should have. ---
**Author:** ![3AxisCtrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/3/ecd19e/32.png) [@3AxisCtrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/3AxisCtrl)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2023, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-overturned-june-26-2024/986583/26 "2023-07-05T16:47:32Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > The argument is that the message is **dangerous**. That should not be protected speech. I think a high percentage of politicians can be trusted to see danger lurking in any form of speech that calls their views and actions into question. Such speech could lead to the possibility - obviously dangerous to any sensible person - that their opponents might prevail in an upcoming election. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2023, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-overturned-june-26-2024/986583/27 "2023-07-05T16:49:23Z")
> [@3AxisCtrl](#): > > I think a high percentage of politicians can be trusted to see danger lurking in any form of speech that calls their views and actions into question. I’m talking about _actual_ danger. Speech that literally can kill people, and has. A politician ranting about speech that harms them politically is not relevant. ---
**Author:** ![3AxisCtrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/3/ecd19e/32.png) [@3AxisCtrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/3AxisCtrl)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2023, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-overturned-june-26-2024/986583/28 "2023-07-05T16:52:05Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > I’m talking about _actual_ danger. As perceived by whom? > [@](#): > > A politician ranting about speech that harms them politically is not relevant. Until that politician is among those who decide what’s dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2023, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-overturned-june-26-2024/986583/29 "2023-07-05T16:53:49Z")
> [@3AxisCtrl](#): > > As perceived by whom? The courts, as was done for decades prior to _Brandenburg_. It’s no different than when someone stands up in front of people and incites them into imminent lawless action, which currently **is** illegal, and not protected by the First Amendment. Who decides when that occurs? The courts do. ---
**Author:** ![3AxisCtrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/3/ecd19e/32.png) [@3AxisCtrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/3AxisCtrl)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2023, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-overturned-june-26-2024/986583/30 "2023-07-05T16:58:40Z")
FWIW, here are items mentioned in the ruling, that plaintiffs allege against the Biden administration: (1) suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the 2020 Presidential election; (2) suppressing speech about the lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origin; (3) suppressing speech about the efficiency of masks and COVID-19 lockdowns; (4) suppressing speech about the efficiency of COVID-19 vaccines; (5) suppressing speech about election integrity in the 2020 presidential election; (6) suppressing speech about the security of voting by mail; (7) suppressing parody content about Defendants; (8) suppressing negative posts about the economy; (9) suppressing negative posts about President Biden. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2023, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-overturned-june-26-2024/986583/31 "2023-07-05T17:00:16Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > The courts, as was done for decades prior to _Brandenburg_. It’s no different than when someone stands up in front of people and incites them into imminent lawless action, which currently **is** illegal, and not protected by the First Amendment. Who decides when that occurs? The courts do. As mentioned before…the government cannot engage in “[prior restraint.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prior_restraint)” Which is to say, they cannot stop you from saying something no matter how “imminently dangerous” they think it is. They can come after you later perhaps. And I don’t see how the government _asking_ for something from a company is a problem as long as the company can ignore them. ---
**Author:** ![3AxisCtrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/3/ecd19e/32.png) [@3AxisCtrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/3AxisCtrl)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2023, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-overturned-june-26-2024/986583/32 "2023-07-05T17:08:29Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > And I don’t see how the government _asking_ for something from a company is a problem as long as the company can ignore them. This is a bit like saying that there should be no problem if the company CEO asks his secretary for after-hours personal favors - she can just say no. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2023, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-overturned-june-26-2024/986583/33 "2023-07-05T17:11:08Z")
I feel the same way, and since I’m not a legal expert I can’t say when it crosses the line into “abridging” free speech (the language in the constitution). ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2023, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-overturned-june-26-2024/986583/34 "2023-07-05T17:11:23Z")
Again…there is a BIG difference between leaning on your secretary and leaning on a mutli-billion dollar corporation that has a platoon of attorneys and gobs of money and a media platform to beat you up with. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2023, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-overturned-june-26-2024/986583/35 "2023-07-05T17:12:48Z")
I’m not sure there is **any** difference from a legal perspective. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2023, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-overturned-june-26-2024/986583/36 "2023-07-05T17:13:35Z")
From a **legal** perspective I cannot see how asking for something is against the law. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2023, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-overturned-june-26-2024/986583/37 "2023-07-05T17:18:43Z")
It depends on how it’s asked. If you are implying that there will be consequences if they don’t comply, then that seems like a violation of their rights to me. If you do so publicly in order to harm their reputation, that looks like a violation as well. I’m not a lawyer, as I’ve said before, but the act of “asking” isn’t necessarily harmless. And since a judge here is ruling that it _is_ against the law, it seems that your statements are not completely accurate. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2023, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-overturned-june-26-2024/986583/38 "2023-07-05T17:19:15Z")
The that ask is extortion and against the law. Take them to court. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2023, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-overturned-june-26-2024/986583/39 "2023-07-05T17:21:22Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Take them to court. Which is what happened, and that led us to the actions that spurred this thread, we’ve come full circle. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2023, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-overturned-june-26-2024/986583/40 "2023-07-05T17:26:34Z")
I do not think extortion was at issue in this case. A power imbalance does not mean the person with more power cannot ask something of someone with less power. The person with power may need to be cautious about it to avoid being seen as overbearing but there is nothing inherently wrong with asking. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-overturned-june-26-2024/986583.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-limits-biden-administration-contact-with-social-media-firms-overturned-june-26-2024/986583.md?page=3)