In defense of dark free speech: Another radical right judge goes rogue

Recent rogue Supreme Court cases continue to show the unprincipled, authoritarianism of the radical right. Major lawsuits have been decided based on (i) fake, non-existent evidence of damages, (ii) parties that lack standing, (iii) blatant rejection of settled precedent (stare decisis in legalese), (iv) made-up, cherry picked tests for legality, and (v) barely-existent or non-existent legal basis for a decision. 

The authoritarian rot in the federal courts is spreading and deepening. The newest example is from a federal trial court judge who, without any recognized legal basis has relied on a false, crackpot conspiracy theory to attack federal efforts to deal with dark free speech in social media. The conspiracy alleges the federal government has conspired with social media to suppress 'conservative' free speech online. That crackpottery is close to the same level of depravity as the debunked '2020 election was stolen' crackpottery. The NYT writes:

Federal Judge Limits Biden Officials’ Contacts With Social Media Sites

A federal judge in Louisiana on Tuesday restricted the Biden administration from communicating with social media platforms about broad swaths of content online, a ruling that could curtail efforts to combat false and misleading narratives about the coronavirus pandemic and other issues.

The order, which could have significant First Amendment implications, is a major development in a fierce legal fight over the boundaries and limits of speech online.

It was a victory for Republicans who have often accused social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube of disproportionately taking down right-leaning content, sometimes in collaboration with government. Democrats say the platforms have failed to adequately police misinformation and hateful speech, leading to dangerous outcomes, including violence.

Rogue dictator party Trump judge Doughty

The radical right's effort to defend and promote dark free speech

Like dictators and plutocrats of the past, America's radical right authoritarian movement recognizes the necessity of allowing unfettered dark free speech to flourish to disinform, divide and distract the public. The rise and influence of big social media as a speech platform makes it necessary for the dictators, theocrats and plutocrats to inject their poison there. Honest speech is a major barrier and antidote to dark free speech. Simply put, social media has to be poisoned to advance the authoritarian's anti-democracy and anti-inconvenient truth agenda.

In his ruling, Trump judge Terry Doughty (US District Court in Louisiana) imposed an injunction that the Department of Health and Human Services, FBI and some other agencies, could not talk to social media companies for “the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.” The rogue wrote that “if the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history. The plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the government has used its power to silence the opposition.”

So far, there is no solid evidence of any federal government effort to collude with social media to illegally suppress radical right dark free speech. The Biden administration knows that under current law, it cannot interfere with what content social media sites allow on their platforms. At most, some publicly available emails and text messages were instances where federal officials complained to social media executives about influential crackpots spreading disinformation, particularly involving the coronavirus pandemic. Complaining about dark free speech does not amount to suppression of anyone's free speech, dark or honest.

The judge’s order also bars federal agencies from communicating with anti-dark free speech groups. Those groups include the Election Integrity Partnership, the Virality Project and the Stanford Internet Observatory. Those groups have been advocating removal of protected dark free speech speech online, e.g., anti-vaccine lies, various radical right fake conspiracy theories, etc.

Alleging the government has suppressed conservative speech online is a bullshit lie on a staggering scale. It is in the same class of bullshittery as the 2020 election was stolen lie. The point of this lawsuit is to revoke the capacity of big social media to police the content on their own sites. In the past and at present, the 1st Amendment free speech clause was intended to keep government from silencing speech, not private entities like social media platforms. 

Other radical right states have filed federal lawsuits to achieve the same goal. For example, Republican attorneys general in Texas and Florida are now defending in courts state laws that prevent internet sites from taking down certain political content. All of these lawsuits are intended to reach the Supreme Court in the hope that it will rule that dark free speech cannot be restricted on big social media sites. In addition to that, radical Republicans in the House are also fight to defend and expand the influence of  dark free speech as best they can. The House is inundating anti-dark free speech universities and think tanks with oppressive requests for information and subpoenas. 

In view of the mountain of evidence, there is no reasonable basis to deny or mistake this for anything other than what it is. The dictator party (GOP), authoritarian radical right extremists and various crackpot groups are fighting hard to expand the scope and influence of dark free speech in society and politics. This is another major prong in the American authoritarian attack on democracy, inconvenient truth and an informed electorate. 

Qs: Does defense of dark free speech feel like a small, medium or large concern or threat related to defense of democracy and inconvenient truth? Is this just a kerfuffle in a teapot, or something much more dangerous?