A federal appeals court has ruled in favor of Meta, determining that the company’s actions did not violate constitutional rights in restricting posts from Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Children’s Health Defense.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
In a significant ruling, a federal appeals court has sided with Meta, the parent company of Facebook, determining that the tech giant did not infringe on the constitutional rights of Children’s Health Defense (CHD), a nonprofit organization led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The decision, handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on August 9, upholds an earlier ruling from a U.S. district court.
The lawsuit filed by CHD argued that Meta’s actions, including tagging CHD’s posts as spreading false information and restricting the organization’s ability to fundraise and purchase advertisements, violated the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. CHD also accused Meta of false promotion and conspiracy with government entities.
However, the majority of the Ninth Circuit panel rejected these claims, stating that Meta’s actions were within the company’s rights to enforce its policies. “Meta has a First Amendment right to use its platform to promote views it finds congenial and to refrain from promoting views it finds distasteful,” U.S. Circuit Judge Eric D. Miller wrote in the majority opinion. The court concluded that CHD did not provide enough evidence to support its claim that Meta acted as a state actor in coordination with the government.
CHD’s assertion that Meta should be considered a state actor was dismissed by the court, which noted that such a designation only applies under exceptional circumstances. The court observed that while the government did flag certain posts to Meta through a portal created by the company, Meta ultimately made its own decisions regarding the enforcement of its policies. The majority opinion highlighted that the documents presented by CHD indicated that Meta and the government often disagreed on policies and their implementation, weakening the argument that Meta acted on behalf of the state.
U.S. District Judge Edward Korman, sitting by designation, concurred with Miller’s opinion.
Despite the majority ruling, U.S. Circuit Judge Daniel Collins offered a partial dissent. Collins argued that CHD had provided sufficient evidence to plausibly claim that Meta violated its First Amendment rights. He pointed to communications between White House officials and Meta, where the government flagged specific posts from CHD and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “The government expressed its specific interest in suppressing particular speech of particular speakers—including CHD and Kennedy—and Meta responded by underscoring the steps it had taken, and planned to take, to accomplish just that,” Collins wrote.
Collins also noted that these actions took place amidst public threats from government officials to limit or revoke the legal immunity provided to major tech companies like Meta under federal law. This context, he suggested, could have influenced Meta’s actions.
Meta did not respond to requests for comment regarding the ruling.
Following the split decision, CHD officials are considering their legal options, which include requesting a rehearing by the full Ninth Circuit or appealing directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. “The First Amendment, at this point, seems hollow,” said CHD’s general counsel Kim Mack Rosenberg in a statement. “Often, the only speech ‘protected’ and heard is that which reinforces the prevailing narrative.”
As the legal battle over content moderation by tech giants like Meta continues, this case underscores the ongoing tension between free speech rights and the power of private companies to regulate content on their platforms. CHD’s next steps could have far-reaching implications for how these issues are addressed in the future.
Leave a Comment