The Trump administration is fighting for the right to keep some social media moderation supporters out of the US.
On Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg heard arguments in a lawsuit between the nonprofit Coalition for Independent Technology Research (CITR) and Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other Trump administration officials. The lawsuit relates to a policy that allows visa restrictions to be granted to foreign officials who “demand that U.S. technology platforms adopt global content moderation policies.” CITR is arguing for a preliminary injunction blocking the policy, which the State Department already referenced when it sanctioned five people who worked on online misinformation issues, including a former European official who led the implementation of its digital services rules. It says allowing the policy to continue will silence people researching topics such as online content moderation and misinformation.
The policy in question was announced in May last year, and the State Department issued the ban in December, saying it was aimed at “elevated censorship actions by foreign states.” The group includes former EU official Thierry Breton and officials from the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), both of which are members of CITR. CCDH’s CEO, Imran Ahmed, who was the target of sanctions, is a lawful permanent US resident, according to CITR.
“One of the worst parts about the cooling effect is the research that won’t happen.”
CITR argues that the policy harms the ability of scholars to speak and publish freely. In declarations given to the court, the researchers described holding back from discussing the work publicly because they feared it might jeopardize their visa status, or delaying publishing some research before international travel. “One of the worst parts about the chilling effect is that not all the research will happen,” CITR Executive Director Brandi Guerkink said at a news conference after the hearing.
The government’s defense largely depends on a very narrow reading of the policy. Lawyer Zack Lindsay argued that it only targets the conduct of people who work for foreign governments, so independent researchers have nothing to fear. Cary DeSalle, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, arguing on behalf of CITR, said there was no evidence that Ahmed was coordinating with any foreign government. If the policy is being implemented outside its supposed parameters, Boasberg asked Lindsey, “Doesn’t that expose your logic?” Lindsay insisted on Ahmed was not was actually targeted under the policy, despite Rubio referencing it in a memo where he advised that Ahmed was deported — and argued that the description of any particular target does not undermine the State Department’s broader authority.
Overall, Lindsay left dealing with a foreign government vague at all – an ambiguity which, DeSalle said, “seems to be part of the point.” The State Department is seeking to preserve broad authority to restrict visas, regardless of the specifics of a given policy.
The injunction may partly depend on technical questions such as whether the CITR has grounds to sue. But Boasberg questioned another key claim of the government: that a court can only decide whether a policy is constitutional in the context of a legal challenge for an individual visa holder facing deportation. “Can there be no constitutional challenge to any policy, no matter how absurd it is declared?” He asked hypothetically. He will soon decide whether the policy should be stopped to prevent irreparable damage. “I’ll do my best to figure it all out,” Boasberg said.
<a href