Disinformation researchers are suing Marco Rubio - and the mechanism in the complaint matters more than the politics - Silicon Canals

A dispute over online safety research has shifted from content moderation to whether researchers studying how lies spread can obtain U.S. visas. A federal lawsuit argues that immigration law is being used to punish a field of study the government dislikes. The contested issue is whether the government can make a category of research too risky to pursue by using a rarely invoked part of the Immigration and Nationality Act, without enacting a law that directly targets the research. The lawsuit contrasts a direct ban, which would likely face a First Amendment challenge, with a visa approach that pressures researchers to self-censor while avoiding explicit restrictions on the research itself. The case names multiple top officials and involves noncitizen researchers and institutions.

"The fight over online safety research is no longer only a fight about content moderation. It is now a fight about whether a researcher who studies how lies spread on social media can get a visa to enter the United States, and a federal lawsuit argues the Trump administration has turned immigration law into a tool for punishing a field of study it dislikes."

"What is actually being contested is something narrower and stranger: whether the government can use a rarely invoked corner of the Immigration and Nationality Act to make a category of research too risky to do, without ever passing a law against the research itself. That distinction matters. A direct ban on disinformation research would face an immediate First Amendment challenge it would almost certainly lose."

"A visa policy that rejects or threatens the people who do the research, and lets the rest self-censor on their way out the door, can move toward the same destination without ever putting the destination in writing. The lawsuit, filed by the Coalition for Independent Technology Research with the Knight First Amendment Institute and Protect Democracy, names Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and Attorney General Pam Bondi as defendants."

"CITR's argument is that the government's visa policy, justified under a vague "censorship" rationale, violates the First Amendment by punishing researchers for the content and perceived viewpoint of their work. CITR is a professional body representing individual and institutional members across multiple countries. A significant portion of those members are noncitizens working in, working with, or seeking to work in the United States."

Read at Silicon Canals