bag heads
© iStock
Recently introduced legislation would allow members of the American public to sue federal employees who violate their protections under the First Amendment.

The Censorship Accountability Act (H.R. 4848) would expand current law to allow Americans to bring lawsuits against federal executive branch employees for violating individuals' First Amendment rights, including censoring views on social media.

The text of the legislation states:
A Federal employee who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of the United States, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or any person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the First Amendment, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.
The bill was introduced by Congressman Dan Bishop (R-NC). It has nine co-sponsors as of the time of this writing.

Bishop said in a statement:
Freedom of speech is the bedrock principle of our nation. Unfortunately, many malicious actors, especially federal bureaucrats, are bent on undermining the First Amendment and censoring Americans at every turn. Current law allows government agents to censor and suppress free speech with little recourse for those being silenced. My bill will change that by finally allowing Americans to sue federal employees who violate their First Amendment rights. The Censorship Industrial Complex should no longer be allowed to operate with impunity, and those who seek to destroy the freedom of speech should have to answer for it in a court of law.
The legislation was introduced in response to the Missouri v. Biden court case. The case was filed by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry against the Biden administration.

Plaintiffs in the case state that the Biden administration pressured social media companies to suppress information on certain topics, such as the Hunter Biden laptop story or COVID-19 health policies.

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction on July 4, 2023, which barred several federal agencies from "threatening, pressuring, or coercing social-media companies in any manner to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce posted content of postings containing protected free speech."

In his ruling, Judge Terry A. Doughty wrote:
The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition. 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.
The government argued that the statements made by its officials were protected speech. However, Doughty wrote:
The Defendants argue that by making public statements, this is nothing but government speech. However, it was not the public statements that were the problem. It was the alleged use of government agencies and employees to coerce and/or significantly encourage social-media platforms to suppress free speech on those platforms.
Read the full article here.
About the Author:
Ian Smith is one of the co-founders of FedSmith.com. He enjoys writing about current topics that affect the federal workforce.