Mark Zuckerberg’s Overdue Admission About Government Censorship Could Offer Fuel For First Amendment Claims

… New Civil Liberties Alliance litigation counsel Jenin Younes said Zuckerberg’s admission doesn’t change the Supreme Court’s standing analysis for the plaintiffs in Murthy, though it “certainly strengthens the First Amendment claim.”

“The Court would likely say this doesn’t establish that any of the specific plaintiffs were censored because of the government, even though Zuckerberg does acknowledge that the government improperly exerted influence over Meta’s content moderation decisions,” Younes told the DCNF. “While Zuckerberg tries to hedge by saying ultimately the platform made its own choices, it’s clear those choices were driven by the government’s pressure campaign, as he admits that in hindsight Meta would have done things differently.”

Younes said Zuckerberg is “talking out of both sides of his mouth. (RELATED: Mark Zuckerberg Admits Biden-Harris Admin Pressured Facebook To Censor Content, Expresses Regret)

“Zuckerberg has a motivation to portray the company’s censorship decisions as it’s alone: theoretically, if courts find Meta was acting as an arm of the government, the company could be liable as a state actor for monetary damages based on harm censored individuals suffered,” she explained.

District Court Judge Terry Doughty ordered the parties in the Missouri case Tuesday to brief their positions on whether additional discovery would help him evaluate whether the case should move forward. NCLA senior litigation counsel John Vecchione previously told the DCNF they would seek more evidence of coercion through discovery once the case returned to the district court…

August 28, 2024

---

Originally Published in Daily Caller News Foundation