Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

IG Report Shows Need for Transparency in Government Communication with Social Media Firms

by July 29, 2024
July 29, 2024
IG Report Shows Need for Transparency in Government Communication with Social Media Firms

David Inserra

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Murthy v. Missouri, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Inspector General (IG) recently released its investigation into how the DOJ communicates with social media companies. The Murthy decision determined that to have legal standing to sue, potential victims of censorship need to prove that a specific government demand was backed by a clear coercive threat that led to the suppression of their speech.

As I wrote at the time, this means that some sort of transparency regime into government demands of social media companies is even more critical. The only way to discover clear evidence of censorship is for victims to be aware of government actions taken against their speech. Such knowledge is hard to come by, however, as most social media companies don’t tell users if the government is targeting their speech. And the government isn’t eager to let everyone know about its censorial actions.

Enter the new IG report. The IG found that in its efforts to counter foreign malign influence, “neither DOJ nor the FBI had a specific policy or guidance applicable to information sharing with social media companies until February 2024.” The lack of such guidance “created potential risks for the FBI and the Department arising from the fact that social media is often used as a forum for protected political speech in connection with U.S. elections.”

So the DOJ responded by developing a standard operation procedure for communicating with social media companies about such foreign threats. When asked by the IG to make this new procedure available to the public, the DOJ refused. The report states, “Additionally, in view of its sensitivity markings, the FBI informed the OIG that the SOP is not suitable for public release. Because DOJ’s credibility and reputation are potentially impaired when its activities are not well understood by the public, we recommend that the Department identify a way that it can inform the public about the procedures it has put into place to transmit foreign malign influence threat information to social media companies in a manner that is protective of First Amendment rights.”

Talk about an understatement. Neither the DOJ nor the FBI will tell Americans what its procedures are for protecting their First Amendment rights—yes, that might impair the DOJ’s credibility and reputation on this issue. In light of a significant Supreme Court case on this topic, government and experts getting truth vs. misinformation wrong, and falling and politicized trust in the FBI, government agencies like the DOJ have a lot of work to do to rebuild the public’s trust. But their response so far seems to be, “just trust us.”

If the DOJ won’t be transparent about its procedures, then, of course, it will resist even deeper transparency into the actual content of its communications. And this resistance is certainly present across the government.

That’s why Congress needs to step in and require government actors to report their requests and demands of social media companies. The Office of Management and Budget would collect these requests and then publish them for the public to see, subject to existing Freedom of Information Act restrictions for things like privacy and national security. Social media companies would also inform the people who are targeted by the government.

While true national security threats that the FBI wants to refer to social media companies will be kept secret, those targeted by the government should be allowed to challenge this in court. This prevents the government from abusing “security” as a way to keep its censorial demands secret.

The DOJ inspector general was right to point out that the lack of transparency and trust in how the government makes demands of social media companies is not healthy. Rather than trusting the government to abide by the First Amendment, policymakers should require transparency that brings censorship into the sunlight.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Harris’ momentum a reflection of Democrat ‘relief’ replacing Biden: GOP strategist
next post
Iran trying to sabotage Trump’s presidential campaign: US intelligence

You may also like

Friday Feature: The Gathering Learning Studio

May 31, 2024

Courts Should Affirm First Amendment Rights of Youths...

April 1, 2024

Unprecedented Student Visa Denials in 2022: 35% Rejected

May 31, 2023

Vaping, Panic, and Prohibition: Why the UC-Davis Study...

July 14, 2025

Debt, Spending, and Inflation Projected to Increase in...

May 15, 2023

Congress’s Shade on Suspended Solar Duties Shines Light...

May 8, 2023

Why Is Trump So Intent on Sending Illegal...

April 21, 2025

More Bad News for Link Taxes, Eh?

November 14, 2023

Amid Wave of Fed Criticism, Cato Study Finds...

May 10, 2023

Should the US Government Privatize the Post Office?

February 12, 2025

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Tech Taps the Brakes, Homebuilders Hit the Gas: See the Rotation on StockCharts Today

      July 22, 2025
    • Obama denies Trump’s ‘bizarre allegations’ that he was Russiagate ‘ringleader’ in rare statement

      July 22, 2025
    • Huckabee hits back at Western countries that ‘side’ with terror group Hamas

      July 22, 2025
    • Jeffrey Epstein case reopens focus on Ghislaine Maxwell as deputy AG steps in

      July 22, 2025
    • Key Features to Look for in a Rechargeable Pod-Style Vape Kit

      July 22, 2025
    • Pick the Right Trading Account for You – See What MS Limited Has to Offer (MS Limited Review)

      July 22, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,548)
    • Investing (2,139)
    • Politics (16,159)
    • Stocks (3,223)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved