Simply by not demanding anything --- contrary to the article's unsupported claims.
The administration is providing info --- which they have every right to do under the first amendment. What Facebook chooses to do with that info is ultimately Facebook's decision.
"Demanding" or coercing action, with any sort of adverse repercussions involved for failure or refusal to act, would become a legal/first amendment/fascist issue. But the article fails to provide any support for it's claim of such.
Lacking any "demand" by the administration, there is nothing to challenge --- except perhaps the motives of the article and Caitlin Johnstone.
That kind of argumentation tends not to hold up in court, and for good reason. If the f---ing White House reaches out to your company and makes a polite request, it is NOT a good idea to ignore that request. Because, you know, the implication.
The courts tend to hold up this view that when there is such a massively asymmetric power relationship, like there is here, then even a polite request is really a demand. No reasonable company beholden to its shareholders could justify pushing back against the highest levels of the executive branch.
> the Biden administration has admitted that it is giving Facebook a list of accounts to censor for spreading "disinformation" about the Covid-19 response.
The First Amendment restrains only Congress making law, not the Executive branch cooperating with corporations. Unless they did it in come round-about way under an act of law which led to authorizing/funding this, I guess.
I think it is correct to say that the executive branch is only authorized to implement existing laws, and Congress creates those laws. So the executive branch is indirectly constrained. For every action X they take, they must cite a law which authorizes them to do X, and that law is made by Congress.
So I guess more properly, either (a) this executive action is not backed by Congress and therefore unconstitutional, or (b) whatever law they think allows them to do this must be unconstitutional on 1st amendment grounds.
You seem to be (intentionally?) missing the point that anyone (government or not) notifying Facebook or other media of something does not equal a requirement under force of law to do anything about it.
IF Facebook refused to take down dis- or misinformation after being notified of it AND the government then took some action against Facebook, THEN Facebook could probably bring a First Amendment case.
