Judge: Trump can’t deport researchers just for working in content moderation
Judge: Trump can’t deport researchers just for working in content moderation
法官裁定：特朗普政府不得仅因研究人员从事内容审核工作而将其驱逐出境
This week, the Coalition for Independent Technology Research (CITR) won a key battle in its fight to reverse a visa-restriction policy that the Trump administration had used to attempt to revoke green cards and deport non-US citizens who work on misinformation, disinformation, fact-checking, content moderation, compliance, and trust and safety. 本周，独立技术研究联盟（CITR）在其推翻一项签证限制政策的斗争中赢得了一场关键战役。特朗普政府曾利用该政策试图撤销绿卡，并驱逐那些从事错误信息、虚假信息、事实核查、内容审核、合规以及信任与安全工作的非美国公民。
In an opinion published Tuesday, US District Judge James Boasberg granted a preliminary injunction blocking the State Department from enforcing the policy until the CITR’s lawsuit is resolved. On its face, the policy does not require visa denials or deportations. Instead, it authorizes immigration investigations into individuals suspected of helping foreign adversaries attempt to manipulate public opinion by suppressing US speech. 在周二发布的一份意见书中，美国联邦地区法官詹姆斯·博斯伯格（James Boasberg）发布了一项初步禁令，阻止国务院在CITR的诉讼解决之前执行该政策。从表面上看，该政策并未要求拒绝签证或进行驱逐。相反，它授权对那些被怀疑协助外国对手通过压制美国言论来操纵舆论的个人进行移民调查。
Over the course of the litigation, the State Department so far has failed to prove that any of the five researchers explicitly targeted under the policy had any connection to a foreign power attempting to censor Americans or manipulate US public debate. Left unchecked, the State Department’s authority seemingly had “no clear stopping point short of the [content moderation] field itself,” Boasberg said. 在诉讼过程中，国务院迄今未能证明该政策明确针对的五名研究人员中，有任何一人与试图审查美国人或操纵美国公共辩论的外国势力有任何关联。博斯伯格表示，如果不加限制，国务院的权力似乎“在（内容审核）领域本身之外，没有明确的停止点”。
The attacks on trust and safety workers just doing their jobs are particularly concerning, since Secretary of State Marco Rubio threatened that his department “stands ready and willing to expand” the list of targeted researchers, Boasberg said. That’s why Boasberg paused the policy’s enforcement broadly, rather than limiting the injunction to only CITR members, as the State Department had requested. 博斯伯格指出，针对仅仅是在履行职责的信任与安全工作人员的攻击尤其令人担忧，因为国务卿马尔科·鲁比奥（Marco Rubio）曾威胁称，其部门“随时准备并愿意扩大”目标研究人员名单。这就是为什么博斯伯格广泛地暂停了该政策的执行，而不是像国务院所要求的那样，仅将禁令限制在CITR成员范围内。
As the judge explained: “A lawful permanent resident working on a platform’s trust-and-safety team, a noncitizen researcher urging stronger disinformation labels, a compliance employee helping apply moderation rules, or an advocacy leader pressing advertisers away from sites that spread falsehoods could reasonably understand the policy to place their immigration status at risk—not because they wield foreign sovereign power or facilitate its censorship, but simply because they work in content moderation.” 正如法官所解释的那样：“一名在平台信任与安全团队工作的合法永久居民、一名呼吁加强虚假信息标签的非公民研究人员、一名协助应用审核规则的合规员工，或一名敦促广告商远离传播虚假信息网站的倡导领袖，都有理由认为该政策会使其移民身份面临风险——这并非因为他们行使了外国主权权力或促进了其审查，而仅仅是因为他们从事内容审核工作。”
According to Boasberg, the State Department was putting “its enforcement thumb against one side of the scale” in an ongoing, heated public debate over how much content moderation is permissible before platforms cross a line into censorship. In line with President Trump’s views, any noncitizen researcher who favors more moderation would seemingly be more likely to be penalized under the policy than a researcher who favors less moderation, Boasberg suggested. 博斯伯格认为，在关于平台在何种程度的内容审核下会越界进入“审查”范畴这一持续且激烈的公共辩论中，国务院正在“将执法的砝码压向天平的一侧”。博斯伯格指出，与特朗普总统的观点一致，任何支持更多审核的非公民研究人员，似乎比支持较少审核的研究人员更容易受到该政策的惩罚。
CITR argued an injunction was necessary to avoid irreparable harms, and the government didn’t even dispute that, Boasberg said, seemingly expecting to prove that the CITR had no standing and focusing its arguments there. However, CITR presented evidence, corroborated by other researchers, that the policy chilled research, advocacy, and travel. For CITR, the policy specifically impaired its reporting, messed with events, increased its costs, and diminished its public-facing work. 博斯伯格表示，CITR主张必须发布禁令以避免不可挽回的损害，而政府甚至没有对此提出异议，似乎是寄希望于证明CITR没有诉讼资格，并将论点集中于此。然而，CITR提交了证据，并得到其他研究人员的证实，表明该政策抑制了研究、倡导和旅行。对于CITR而言，该政策具体损害了其报告工作，干扰了活动，增加了成本，并削弱了其面向公众的工作。
Boasberg ruled that CITR showed enough evidence of harm to likely prove that the policy violated the First Amendment by improperly censoring researchers based on their viewpoints. “Much of American political debate consists of disagreement over whether a practice is liberty or regulation, safety or suppression, accountability or censorship,” Boasberg wrote. “The First Amendment does not permit officials to resolve that dispute by attaching legal burdens to the side they condemn.” 博斯伯格裁定，CITR提供了足够的损害证据，足以证明该政策通过基于研究人员的观点进行不当审查，从而违反了宪法第一修正案。“美国的大部分政治辩论在于对某种做法究竟是自由还是监管、是安全还是压制、是问责还是审查的分歧，”博斯伯格写道，“第一修正案不允许官员通过对他们谴责的一方施加法律负担来解决这种争端。”
US accused of doing Big Tech’s bidding
美国被指充当大型科技公司的“打手”
Among the first targets of the State Department’s policy were online safety researchers who criticized X, whose owner, Elon Musk, remains a Trump ally. Former European Commissioner Thierry Breton was targeted partly for sending a letter to X in 2024 concerning X’s obligations under the Digital Services Act. Breton’s case is the closest that the State Department came in alleging that a targeted noncitizen was conspiring with a foreign power to censor US speech. 国务院政策的首批目标之一是批评X平台的在线安全研究人员，而X的所有者埃隆·马斯克（Elon Musk）仍是特朗普的盟友。前欧盟委员蒂埃里·布雷顿（Thierry Breton）被针对的部分原因是他在2024年向X发送了一封关于其在《数字服务法案》（DSA）下义务的信函。布雷顿的案例是国务院最接近于指控目标非公民与外国势力勾结以审查美国言论的案例。
But Boasberg said that the State Department’s argument clashed with its own assessment of what constituted a foreign sovereign threat under the policy. The judge noted that the department had investigated whether European regulators were using the DSA to censor Americans and found “no evidence” of overreach enabling the censorship or criminalization of online speech. Further, the State Department could not connect any of the other targeted researchers to its policy interest in barring their entry into the US. 但博斯伯格表示，国务院的论点与其自身对该政策下何为“外国主权威胁”的评估相冲突。法官指出，该部门曾调查欧洲监管机构是否利用DSA审查美国人，结果发现“没有证据”表明存在导致在线言论审查或定罪的越权行为。此外，国务院无法将其他任何目标研究人员与该部门禁止其进入美国的政策利益联系起来。
Boasberg did not suggest the policy itself is illegal, only the seemingly unconstitutional enforcement of the policy against people working in content moderation without concerning ties to foreign governments. He warned that CITR was likely to prevail on First Amendment claims, given the “mismatch” between the department’s “asserted interest and the policy’s demonstrated operation is stark.” 博斯伯格并未暗示该政策本身违法，只是指出针对那些在内容审核领域工作且与外国政府没有令人担忧联系的人执行该政策，似乎违宪。他警告称，鉴于该部门“主张的利益与政策实际运作之间的‘不匹配’非常明显”，CITR很可能在第一修正案诉求上胜诉。
Researchers targeted by the State Department celebrated the ruling, even though fears of broader retaliation remain as the lawsuit proceeds. Imran Ahmed, the CEO and founder of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), faced the threat of deportation with no advance notice, which was only temporarily blocked after filing a separate lawsuit that remains ongoing. The CCDH publicly sparred with Musk in lengthy litigation over an X ad boycott that Musk ultimately lost, with a judge ruling that X’s lawsuit was about “punishing” the CCDH for its speech. 尽管随着诉讼的进行，人们仍担心会遭到更广泛的报复，但被国务院针对的研究人员对这一裁决表示庆祝。数字仇恨打击中心（CCDH）的首席执行官兼创始人伊姆兰·艾哈迈德（Imran Ahmed）曾面临毫无预警的驱逐威胁，在提起另一起仍在进行的诉讼后，该威胁才被暂时阻止。CCDH曾因X平台的广告抵制活动与马斯克进行了长期的公开诉讼，马斯克最终败诉，法官裁定X的诉讼旨在“惩罚”CCDH的言论。
The State Department didn’t mention X specifically but claimed that they targeted Ahmed due to “CCDH’s research documenting hate and disinformation” on social media platforms and “its campaigns pressing advertisers and the platforms to act on what it found,” Boasberg wrote. In a statement provided to Ars, Ahmed suggested that Big Tech interests influen… 博斯伯格写道，国务院没有明确提及X，但声称他们针对艾哈迈德是因为“CCDH记录社交媒体平台上仇恨和虚假信息的研究”以及“其敦促广告商和平台对其发现的问题采取行动的运动”。在提供给Ars的一份声明中，艾哈迈德暗示大型科技公司的利益影响了……