Federal Appeals Court Finds Cybersecurity Agency Likely Violated First Amendment

In a significant legal development, a federal appeals court has recently ruled that the nation's premier cybersecurity defense agency may have transgressed the bounds of the First Amendment. This verdict pertains to the agency's request for major technology corporations to censor online content concerning COVID-19 and election-related matters. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in its decision, expanded the scope of an existing injunction. Initially directed at restraining communication between the Biden administration and Big Tech entities, the injunction now encompasses the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).

CISA's Role in Censorship: The previous ruling was limited to specific government entities, including the White House, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FBI, and the Surgeon General. However, it has now become apparent that CISA, often regarded as the "nerve center" of the administration's censorship endeavors, played a pivotal role in this censorship saga. Attorney General of Missouri, Andrew Bailey, who leads the litigation against the Biden administration, emphasized CISA's involvement.

Bailey pointed out that CISA was actively collaborating with the FBI in censoring the controversial Hunter Biden laptop story, an incident that many believed could have influenced the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Established in 2018 with the mission of safeguarding critical infrastructure and national cybersecurity, CISA appears to have shifted some of its focus towards monitoring social media and shaping public narratives, notably through its "mis, dis, and malformation" (MDM) team.

Speaking to Fox News Digital, Bailey expressed his concerns, stating, "CISA was created to protect Americans from foreign attack, and now it has begun targeting its own citizens."

CISA's Influence on Social Media Platforms: The court's panel of three judges, in their decisive order, affirmed that CISA was the central player in facilitating interactions between social media companies and the FBI. Together, they actively advocated for more stringent moderation policies on these platforms. The judges' opinion explicitly noted that "CISA used its frequent interactions with social-media platforms to push them to adopt more restrictive policies on censoring election-related speech. And CISA officials affirmatively told the platforms whether the content they had ‘switchboarded’ was true or false."

Much like the CDC's interference in COVID-related matters, CISA also weighed in on the veracity of election claims. Their actions directly influenced the removal or demotion of content by various social media platforms. The judges contended that these platforms were coerced into implementing content moderation policies under the influence of CISA, a scenario that potentially infringes upon the First Amendment.

Injunction's Impact on Officials: Under the injunction, government officials are prohibited from engaging in meetings with social media companies aimed at pressuring or encouraging them to suppress, reduce, delete, or remove content protected under the banner of free speech. Nevertheless, federal government officials retain the ability to engage in discussions involving criminal conspiracies, extortion, national security threats, and other types of public safety concerns.

Additionally, the lawsuit prevents the parties involved from collaborating with academic groups that focus on social media, such as the Stanford Internet Observatory and the Election Integrity Partnership, to prevent undue influence through third parties.

Conclusion: This federal appeals court ruling marks a significant development in the ongoing debate surrounding online content censorship. It highlights concerns about the role of government agencies, such as CISA, in influencing content moderation on major social media platforms. While safeguarding national security and combating misinformation are crucial goals, the court's decision underscores the importance of upholding First Amendment rights in the digital age. As this legal battle continues to unfold, it will undoubtedly have far-reaching implications for the intersection of free speech and online governance.

Free Speech and Alternative Media are under attack by the Deep State. We need your support to survive. 

Please Contribute via GoGetFunding