top of page
  • Staff

Court Ruling Raises Concerns about Disinformation Risk for 2024 Election

A judicial order restricting communication between social media companies and specific agencies of the Biden administration may escalate the spread of disinformation in the lead up to the 2024 election.

On Tuesday, a GOP-backed argument that claimed efforts to tackle disinformation infringe on protected speech led a federal judge to limit the interaction between the Biden administration and social media platforms. Experts fear this decision may suppress attempts to regulate false information on the internet.

Brookings Institute’s Darrell West expressed concern that without significant content moderation, the spread of disinformation could escalate uncontrollably. The contention came from two Republican state attorneys general who alleged the Biden administration had partnered with social media platforms to suppress particular viewpoints and content, resulting in an alleged "campaign of censorship".

Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump nominee, ruled in favor of the GOP, mandating that officials from the Biden administration cannot advise social media platforms about the regulation or deletion of content deemed protected free speech. The Departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, State, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the FBI have been instructed to halt such communications.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre maintained that social media platforms have a vital role in addressing the impacts of their platforms. She said the administration plans to continue its responsible approach despite disagreeing with the court ruling.

Following the decision, the Justice Department filed a notice of appeal and plans to request a suspension of the district court’s ruling. The appeal will be forwarded to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, mostly comprised of GOP-appointed judges.

Alice Marwick, from the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, warns that the ruling continues to misrepresent the effort to combat disinformation as governmental suppression.

The legal action, backed by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri, has received support from Republican lawmakers and public figures. They claim social media platforms disproportionately moderate content from right-leaning sources.

Over time, Marwick suggests, social media platforms may limit moderation due to legal and political fears, even though the immediate impact on online disinformation might be minimal.

Social media giants, including YouTube, Meta, and Twitter, have already begun reducing moderation efforts following misinformation spikes during the COVID-19 pandemic and 2020 presidential election.

The combined effect of this ruling and the existing moderation policies of major platforms could potentially lead to an uncontrollable surge of disinformation for the 2024 election, according to West.

Samir Jain of the Center for Democracy and Technology pointed out that the ruling could hinder government alerts to social media platforms about emerging misinformation trends, especially with the expected rise in AI-generated disinformation.

Despite the wide-reaching order, administration officials can still communicate with platforms about criminal activity, national security threats, threats to public safety, and misleading posts about voting requirements and procedures. However, due to its broad scope, there's potential for varying interpretations of the order. West noted that this is a significant milestone in defining First Amendment rights.


Commenting has been turned off.
bottom of page