The federal health agency will no longer prohibit posts with what it deems ’misleading‘ or ’demonstrably false’ information.
A webpage detailing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s policy for moderating public comments has been revised amid litigation accusing the agency of censorship.
The webpage outlines the CDC’s “Guidelines for Public Comments” on its websites, social media profiles, blogs, and applications. It also states that comments found to violate agency policy may be hidden or removed.
Last updated on Nov. 25, the policy prohibits comments that contain personally identifiable information; threats of harm or violence; profanity, nudity, obscenity, or vulgarity; or the explicit promotion of commercial products or services.
However, an archived version of the page shows that the list has been winnowed down since February, when it also barred “misleading or false information,” defamation, name-calling or personal attacks, comments that infringe on copyrights, and spam.
Notably, a similar version of the initial list appeared on the CDC’s website as recently as Nov. 23. At that point, the only meaningful change since February was that “misleading or false information” had been revised to read “demonstrably false information.”
Heralding the revisions as “great news” in an X post, attorney Aaron Siri attributed them to the lawsuit he filed in July on behalf of independent journalist Lindsay Jones.
“Our lawsuit, supported by [Informed Consent Action Network], not only resulted in CDC unblocking people across X, it has now also resulted in CDC changing its rules to no longer block users for claimed ‘misleading or false information,’” Siri wrote.
The Epoch Times contacted the CDC for comment but received no reply by publication time.
The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleges that the CDC’s decision to block Jones on the X platform violated her First Amendment rights.
“This case presents the unfortunate and increasingly common scenario wherein thin-skinned governmental agencies and representatives are unconstitutionally blocking American constituents’ access to governmental social media profiles used to provide the public updates and policy discussions, and a forum for discussion on updates and policies, based on viewpoints that disagree with the governmental update or policy,” the filing states.
According to the complaint, Jones first became aware that she had been blocked on or around Dec. 16, 2023, after publishing several popular posts that challenged CDC policies and statements surrounding different vaccines.
The lawsuit states that the blocking was in retaliation for Jones’s criticism and constituted an act of viewpoint discrimination. It seeks an injunction declaring the CDC’s actions and public comments policy unconstitutional.
The Department of Justice has yet to file a response with the court, though the CDC has since unblocked Jones on X.
“My lawsuit is still moving forward since they’ve shown they can block American citizens at anytime for simply pointing out factual inaccuracies or inconvenient truths in their social media posts,” Jones wrote on X on Aug. 27.
“The 1st Amendment is worth fighting for.”