Ross: Federal judge rules you have the right to be misinformed
Jul 6, 2023, 11:44 AM
Republican U.S. Sen.-elect and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt delivers a victory speech, Nov. 8, 2022, in Maryland Heights, Mo. On Tuesday, July 4, 2023, a judge prohibited several federal agencies and officials of the Biden administration from working with social media companies about “protected speech.” Schmitt, who was the Missouri attorney general when the lawsuit was filed, said on Twitter that the ruling was “a huge win for the First Amendment and a blow to censorship.” (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson, File)
(AP Photo/Jeff Roberson, File)
This week, a Louisiana federal judge granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana in the case of Missouri v. Biden, which is about whether officials of the federal government had any business contacting social media platforms like Twitter and urging them to delete what was considered misinformation.
Several government agencies have done this, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the surgeon general asking the websites to remove posts pushing bogus COVID-19 cures or alleging that the vaccine was more dangerous than the virus. And, of course, the FBI discouraged posts about what was on Hunter Biden’s laptop.
The injunction has some people really upset that a judge would prohibit what amounts to fact-checking. But I will say, in my own experience, getting a complaint from a government official feels very different than getting a complaint from a listener. I can see how a website operator might feel intimidated.
More on the case: Injunction blocks Biden administration from working with social media firms about ‘protected speech’
At the same time, websites, unlike broadcast stations, have zero legal responsibility to fact check what they publish, even if the information ends up harming their audience.
And now, under this injunction, the government can’t even warn them about the harm they might do.
Under the order, officials of the CDC, the FBI and even the State Department are prohibited from emailing, calling, sending letters, texting, or engaging in any communication of any kind for the purpose of changing content.
More from Dave Ross: Maybe graffiti would be nicer if it was more cheerful
The judge also said if the government wants a post removed or altered, that post would have to involve outright crimes or threats to national security. But other than that, anything goes.
So that’s the new rule for now. Not only are websites legally protected from being sued over the consequences of misinformation, the government can’t even warn them about the harm they might do.
This is the first amendment protecting the right to be misinformed.
I know that for some people, this is outrageous. But for those who feel censored, the pressure from the government was just as outrageous. So this is another one of those issues which will have to be resolved outside the courtroom.
More from Dave Ross: Unequal treatment in Hunter Biden gun charges is outrageous
It will have to be resolved by the laws of nature, but you’re not subject to court injunctions or sentencing guidelines. And under the laws of nature, following bad advice during a pandemic can get you sentenced to a long hospital stay or worse. But that’s how freedom works, it protects your right to be misinformed and to take the consequences. That’s how we evolve.
The law of natural selection can be cruel, but it’s very effective. In any case, it can’t be enjoined, even by a federal judge.
Listen to Seattle’s Morning News with Dave Ross and Colleen O’Brien weekday mornings from 5-9 a.m. on KIRO Newsradio, 97.3 FM. Subscribe to the podcast here.
-
Tune in to KIRO Newsradio weekdays at 5am for Dave Ross on Seattle's Morning News.
