海角大神

A few weeks after he was dubbed 鈥淭he Pandemic鈥檚 Wrongest Man鈥� by听The Atlantic, Alex Berenson鈥檚 name came up in an April 2021 White House meeting with Twitter听representatives.

Officials were keen to address how people were being influenced online against the COVID-19 vaccine,听with only about听4 in 10听people having gotten the shot.听Senior White House adviser Andy Slavitt said it didn鈥檛 seem like Twitter was enforcing its rules against Mr. Berenson, citing an MIT data visualization that showed him as the 鈥渆picenter鈥� of misinformation around the vaccine.

A former New York Times investigative journalist turned COVID-19 contrarian, Mr. Berenson frequently linked to scientific studies and government data. But critics said his posts were dangerously misleading, often leaving out key context.听

Twitter followed up a week or two later. They would not be removing Mr. Berenson.

Government officials鈥櫶齠rustration with Twitter and other social media platforms intensified, boiling over in mid-July 2021 when President听Joe Biden said 鈥渢hey鈥檙e killing people鈥� 鈥� though he later said he meant specific users, not the platforms themselves. Hours later, Mr. Berenson鈥檚 Twitter account was suspended for the first time. By August, he was kicked off entirely.听

Mr. Berenson sued Twitter, and was later reinstated after a settlement. But now, he is suing current and former administration officials as well as a Pfizer board member and the company鈥檚 CEO听for allegedly working together to get him censored. His case also argues that he lost out on the opportunity to promote his November 2021 book, 鈥淧andemia,鈥� to his Twitter audience of more than 300,000.

Mr. Berenson鈥檚 case is one of several lawsuits and congressional investigations alleging government censorship on social media, not only regarding the COVID-19 vaccine but also on topics such as the pandemic鈥檚 origins, the Hunter Biden laptop story, and allegations about the 2020 presidential election. In a related but broader free speech case, Missouri v. Biden, an appeals court ruled on Friday that the government had indeed run afoul of First Amendment rights by coercing social media platforms to suppress disfavored speech. That case is likely to go to the Supreme Court.听

These lawsuits represent the first major pushback against the Biden administration鈥檚 efforts to curb COVID-19 misinformation. They could have broader impacts on everything from public health officials鈥� ability to lead in times of crisis to what users see on social media.听

The White House and the Department of Justice, which is representing the administration in both cases, both declined to comment for this article. But the DOJ argues in court documents that the plaintiffs did not prove a causal link between government officials鈥� conversations with social media companies and the platforms鈥� misinformation policy decisions. Moreover, allies say, the government has not only the right but the responsibility to speak out on issues affecting the public welfare.

鈥淚 think governments have a duty to inform their citizenry,鈥� says Nina Jankowicz, who headed the Biden administration鈥檚 short-lived Disinformation Governance Board and was initially named in the Missouri v. Biden case.听

鈥淚 am not in favor of any sort of censorship from the government 鈥� deciding what is true or false and then issuing penalties,鈥� she adds. But she takes issue with comparing posts on social media to protests in a public square. 鈥淚ndividuals don鈥檛 have a right to say falsehoods at scale to millions of people, or direct them precisely听to the people听who are going to be most vulnerable to these narratives.鈥澨�

Fallout over the censorship of dissenting views on COVID-19, some of which turned out to be correct, has already damaged trust in public health officials. It may also spur Congress to erect new guardrails circumscribing how government can interact with Big Tech, which could limit the ability to curb misinformation and disinformation. And the courts鈥� rulings could have a profound effect on future scientific and societal debates, not only surrounding things like vaccines but also on other divisive issues, such as climate change.听

鈥淎 prosperous, scientifically advanced society depends on the right to dissent, especially in science and medicine,鈥� says Philip Hamburger, a Columbia law professor and head of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which is representing four of the five individual plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden. 鈥淐ensorship not only suppresses some Americans, it also leaves the rest of us blind.鈥澨�

Is a government 鈥渞equest鈥� coercive?听

Three days before Mr. Slavitt, a senior adviser on the White House鈥檚 COVID-19 response, brought up Mr. Berenson with Twitter on April 21, 2021, he had posed similarly tough questions to Facebook executive Nick Clegg. In an听email, Mr. Clegg summarized their hour-long call for his colleagues, writing that Mr. Slavitt was 鈥渙utraged鈥� that Facebook had not taken down a highly ranked听meme听that he said would inhibit confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine.听The email came from a听trove听of internal Facebook documents obtained by House Republicans who, angered by what they believe to be government-orchestrated suppression of conservative viewpoints, last month signed on to the听Missouri听suit.听

鈥淚 countered that removing content听like听that听would听represent a听significant听incursion听into听traditional boundaries听of听free expression听in听the US,鈥� wrote Mr. Clegg. But he concluded听by recommending that Facebook take stock of its relations with the White House.

While social media companies repeatedly rebuffed听such requests from the administration, the backdrop was a growing push from the White House and Congress听to change a law known as Sect. 230 that could have profound implications for platforms鈥� operations,听influence,听and bottom line. Under the current law, they cannot be held liable for third-party content on their sites 鈥� a听government-provided immunity that has enabled them to grow into massively influential and profitable entities.

On July 20, 2021, White House communications director Kate Bedingfield said on MSNBC that the White House was reviewing Sect. 230 and 鈥渁ssessing whether social media platforms are legally liable for misinformation spread on their platforms.鈥�

鈥淐ertainly, they should be held accountable,鈥� she said.听

Mr. Clegg recommended that Facebook consider making some course corrections, 鈥済iven the bigger fish we have to fry with the Administration.鈥澨�

A key question in both lawsuits is whether the requests officials made of social media platforms, juxtaposed against the administration鈥檚 ability to affect their听bottom line听with policy decisions, amount to coercion.听

鈥淵ou don鈥檛 even need to say, 鈥楾here will be consequences鈥� when you鈥檙e in the White House,鈥� says Mr. Berenson.

But proving coercion is difficult, and the government鈥檚听lawyers听have argued that neither case identifies any concrete demands that were backed by threats. They also point to the fact that the platforms repeatedly rebuffed government requests to suppress certain content, arguing that that proves they were acting independently.听

While White House officials did urge platforms to remove听content they considered problematic, and expressed frustration that social media companies were not being fully transparent about their algorithms and data, exchanges that have since been made public听also suggest the government was genuinely trying to understand a highly complex, technical issue.

鈥淚f people do their own homework, we ought to trust them. Not everyone will choose to get a vaccine,鈥� said听Mr. Slavitt, according to internal Facebook notes of an April 14, 2021, meeting. He noted that he didn鈥檛 regard news about the听Johnson & Johnson听vaccine being temporarily suspended for safety reasons as misinformation, or even problematic.

What did concern him, he said, was people being 鈥渦nduly influenced鈥� 鈥� including by those who misrepresent data, knowingly or unknowingly. 鈥淲e want to know the most effective way to respond.鈥�

Much of the debate has focused on听the pros and cons of content moderation 鈥� but some experts say that approach has limited value, given that most misinformation is seen shortly after posting.听Laura Edelson, a computer scientist who worked on the Virality Project, which tracked COVID-19 misinformation and shared findings with the government,听says a better solution听lies in designing improved听algorithms.听That would enable platforms to combat the spread of misinformation without infringing on free speech, she adds.听

鈥淚 think people need to stop thinking about these two goals as being in tension, because I just don鈥檛 think that they are,鈥� she says.

What does this mean societally?

Missouri v. Biden听alleges that the government coerced social media platforms to suppress dissenting viewpoints 鈥� including those expressed by听plaintiffs Martin Kulldorff and Jay Bhattacharya, epidemiologists at Harvard and Stanford, respectively.听

One of the main examples they give is 鈥渁n organized campaign鈥� against the听Great Barrington Declaration, which they co-wrote with Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta. Published in October 2020, it called for replacing broad听government-mandated COVID-19 restrictions with a more narrow focus on protecting vulnerable individuals, while lifting the lockdowns for everyone else to avoid other harms. It has since been co-signed by nearly 1 million people, including more than 62,000 scientists and health care professionals.

About a week after publication, the co-authors听noticed that Google鈥檚 search results led with criticism of the declaration instead of the declaration itself, despite other search engines still showing it as a top hit. Facebook took down the Great Barrington Declaration page for a week. Reddit removed links to it.

Declarations from Drs. Kulldorff and Bhattacharya note that these actions were in line with a behind-the-scenes request from the head of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis Collins, to Dr. Anthony Fauci and another colleague for a 鈥渜uick and devastating published take down鈥� of the declaration鈥檚 premises, though there鈥檚 no evidence that the officials contacted those platforms about the matter specifically. Both epidemiologists say they were also personally censored on social media.听

鈥淭he United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian 鈥楳inistry of Truth,鈥櫶�鈥澨齱rote听Judge Terry Doughty of Louisiana when he issued a听preliminary injunction听July 4 that barred dozens of agencies and officials from working with social media platforms to address protected free speech. 鈥淓ach United States citizen has the right to decide for himself or herself what is true and what is false.鈥�

The government听appealed, but on Sept. 8 the Fifth Circuit partially upheld听the injunction, blocking certain federal entities and officials from 鈥渟ignificantly encourag[ing]鈥�听social media companies to suppress content. These officials included Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and the successors to Mr. Slavitt and then-Director of Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty 鈥� all of whom are also defendants in Mr. Berenson鈥檚 case.

In the Berenson case, the defense听filed a听motion to dismiss听last month, arguing that Mr. Berenson did not prove a causal link between federal officials鈥� requests and Twitter鈥檚 decision to remove him on Aug. 28, 2021. On that same day, former Food and Drug Administration chief Scott Gottlieb, who left government and became a Pfizer board member, had contacted Twitter about a Berenson听tweet which听said听that the COVID-19 vaccine doesn鈥檛 stop infection or transmission and has a 鈥渢errible side effect profile.鈥� 鈥淎nd we want to mandate it? Insanity,鈥� Mr. Berenson wrote.听

He was deplatformed that day. Less than two weeks later, President Biden听announced听vaccine mandates for all federal employees and large businesses, and extended mandates for health care workers to cover 17 million people.听

A decision on the defense鈥檚 motion to dismiss Mr. Berenson鈥檚 case is expected later this year.听

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a bioethicist who advised the Biden transition team on COVID-19 issues including misinformation, says there鈥檚 not a simple answer in how to weigh the value of a robust public debate that includes fringe views against a more controlled information environment that may turn out not to be 100% correct.

鈥淭he problem is, first of all, the facts do change,鈥� he says, noting that frequently in fast-moving situations, people are dealing with incomplete data.听

Secondly, 鈥渢he interpretation of data is, in science, often contested 鈥� that鈥檚 the nature of research and science,鈥� he adds, noting that听today everyone, not just experts, can read scientific journals as soon as they鈥檙e published. 鈥淲hat the appropriate response is 鈥� even if we agreed on the facts 鈥� is also highly contested.鈥�

Critics say that when the government tries to become the arbiter of truth, particularly if it is censoring not only factually untrue statements but also misleading or politically inconvenient ones, citizens lose trust. And while COVID-19 misinformation policies might have mostly irked conservatives, liberals would likely care just as much if the same approach were taken to issues that matter more to them.听

鈥淭he government, every government, always has an incentive to silence people with messages that they don鈥檛 like 鈥� that鈥檚 why we have a First Amendment,鈥� says John Vecchione, one of the lead counsels in听the Missouri case. 鈥淲ould you want your worst political enemy to have the power that the government used in this case against you and your posts?鈥�