Buckeye Reporter

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has taken a stand against what he perceives as federal overreach in censoring protected speech on social media. Yost filed an amicus brief on September 20th, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to block the Biden administration from infringing on free speech rights by censoring content on social media platforms. Yost's concerns about federal intervention jeopardizing the First Amendment were echoed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which recently ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in a related case.

"The federal government doesn’t get to play referee on the field of public discourse," Yost said. "If you let them decide what speech is OK, one day yours might not be." He also pointed out the government's tendency to target individuals and speech that are disfavored by those in power.

Yost collaborated with attorneys general from Missouri and Louisiana in filing the amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court. The legal action stems from worries that the federal government's involvement in social media content moderation infringes on constitutional rights and sets a concerning precedent for freedom of speech. Yost emphasized the importance of safeguarding free speech from government intrusion, particularly in the context of monitoring and pressuring social media platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The case gained momentum when a federal appeals court in Louisiana sided with Missouri's attorney general, agreeing that the Biden administration's influence on social media platforms to combat misinformation violated the First Amendment. However, the court found a previous injunction, which prevented the government from communicating with social media companies, to be too broad and mostly lifted it, except for a portion related to alleged coercion. The lawsuit alleges that the government collaborated with social media companies to suppress freedom of speech.

U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty had previously ruled that both the Biden and Trump administrations exerted pressure on social media companies to censor content during the COVID-19 pandemic and election period, deeming it a violation of the First Amendment. While the appeals court eased some of the restrictions on the Biden administration, it criticized the government's efforts to combat misinformation by pushing social media companies to remove posts. The ruling is seen as a victory for advocates of free speech, despite the involvement of co-plaintiffs known for spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories.

However, the court's decision had limitations. It absolved certain government entities of culpability and narrowed the scope of the injunction. While recognizing the severity of the government's actions in pressuring social media platforms to moderate content, the ruling exempted some government agencies from the injunction. This leaves room for further legal battles, as the federal government intends to appeal to the Supreme Court.