Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s anti-vaccine group, the Children’s Health Defense (CHD), recently lost a lawsuit against Meta for supporting the CDC. The group failed to convince a court that Meta acted as a state agent when censoring their posts and ads on Facebook and Instagram. The US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Eric Miller affirmed the lower court’s dismissal, stating that Meta’s right to censor views they find distasteful is protected by the First Amendment.
CHD argued that Meta colluded with government officials to censor their protected speech by labeling anti-vaccine posts as misleading or removing and shadowbanning CHD posts. However, Judge Miller pointed out that CHD did not prove that the government was involved in these decisions. He emphasized that Meta’s actions were due to their independent incentives to moderate content and not coercion by the government.
Despite the dissenting opinion of Judge Daniel Collins, who defended CHD’s Section 230 claim and suggested that Meta’s immunity granted them excessive power over speech, the majority of the court rejected the notion that Meta’s anti-vaccine policy constituted coerced state action. They argued that many companies rely on a favorable regulatory environment without becoming state actors.
In conclusion, the court’s decision reaffirms Meta’s right to censor content they deem misleading or harmful, even if it aligns with government views on vaccines. The ruling highlights the complexities of free speech rights on social media platforms and the limitations of holding companies accountable as state actors based on their content moderation policies. It also underscores the ongoing debate over the role of platforms like Meta in regulating public discourse and misinformation.