DOJ downplays FBI's 50% censorship success rate

The FBI’s efforts to suppress information on the internet are successful fifty percent of the time, the Department of Justice (DOJ) said in a court filing last month.

In a case currently awaiting adjudication by the US Supreme Court, the Biden administration is arguing for the right to censor content on social media after it was ordered by a federal court to cease its censorship enterprise.

US District Judge Terry Doughty wrote in a July 4th ruling that “the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’” and may be responsible for “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.” After the Biden administration challenged the order, a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling, barring the White House, Surgeon General, CDC, and FBI from trying to “coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies” to censor users. 

But further challenges from the US government have brought the case before the Supreme Court, where the DOJ is arguing that its 50% success rate proves it is not “coercing” the tech companies.

“The platforms’ routine decisions not to remove content that the government had flagged further refutes any claim of coercion. Appl. 27. Respondents apparently view the FBI’s 50-percent rate as evidence of coercion because ‘any major-league slugger would envy’ a .500 batting average,” DOJ Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said in the filing.

Prelogar also tried to claim that the government only discussed “potential legislative changes” with social media companies, who she said are too large and powerful to be coerced, anyway.

“And it is far-fetched to conclude, as respondents do, that some of the largest and wealthiest companies on the planet, represented by highly competent counsel, would be coerced by general answers to questions about potential legislative changes at press conferences or in cable-television interviews,” the DOJ argued.

But according to evidence brought by the Louisiana and Missouri attorneys general in the original lawsuit last year, the White House not only successfully suppressed speech on Facebook and Twitter, but officials even sought to control Americans’ private WhatsApp messages concerning the COVID-19 vaccines.

White House personnel also worked with tech companies to censor speech on other issues including “climate change,” totalitarian gender ideology, Hunter Biden’s laptop, abortion, gas prices and even mockery of Joe Biden.

“The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition,” wrote Judge Doughty in the original ruling. “Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed. It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature. This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example  of viewpoint discrimination of political speech. American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country.”