Yet another ruling that the Biden Admin is already saying it will ignore. They have ZERO respect for courts
On Independence Day, a federal judge in Louisiana issued an order forbidding multiple federal agencies and officials from engaging with social media companies to moderate content. The preliminary injunction was prompted by a lawsuit filed by the states of Missouri and Louisiana, as well as individuals such as Harvard’s Martin Kulldorff, Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya, and Jim Hoft, the owner of the right-wing website Gateway Pundit.
CNN’s @eliehonig decries “activist” ruling ordering Biden to stop censoring Americans: “One of the most aggressive, far-reaching rulings you’ll ever see. [He’s] purporting to micromanage the day-to-day intersection btwn … the entire Executive Branch [& social media companies]” pic.twitter.com/ZMRWhA1B7M
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) July 5, 2023
US District Judge Terry A. Doughty wrote, “If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history. The plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the government has used its power to silence the opposition.”
Federal judge orders President Biden to stop censoring his critics including me. The decision mentions me on page 17. Happy Independence Day Everyone! – Robert F Kennedy Jr.
Instead of simply reporting the facts that a federal judge just delivered a blockbuster injunction in Missouri v Biden blocking this administration from outsourcing its censorship regime to social media companies, The New York Times spins it as “a ruling that could curtail… pic.twitter.com/lHRlyWjRB5
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) July 4, 2023
The injunction applies to numerous individuals and agencies, including President Biden, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, the Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control, the Treasury Department, State Department, the US Election Assistance Commission, the FBI, the entire Justice Department, and the Department of Health and Human Services.
Bhattacharya and Kulldorff, both vocal critics of the Covid-19 lockdown regime and co-authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, have experienced censorship on social media platforms. They claim that their statements, which challenge the effectiveness of widespread vaccination, question the value of masks, and assert the strength of natural immunity over vaccine-induced immunity, triggered censorship.
A federal judge partially granted an injunction that blocks various Biden administration officials and government agencies such as the #DOJ and the #FBI from working with #BigTech firms to censor posts on social media.
Full story👉https://t.co/IVhS2n1TXR pic.twitter.com/IfniJq6nlo
— The Epoch Times (@EpochTimes) July 5, 2023
While the case primarily focuses on Covid-19 censorship, it also encompasses the Justice Department’s alleged efforts to suppress reporting on Hunter Biden’s “laptop from hell” before the 2020 election. Judge Doughty acknowledged the credibility of these accusations.
The injunction validates the allegations that government officials have colluded with social media platforms to suppress speech that contradicts official narratives, predominantly targeting conservative viewpoints. In his 155-page ruling, Judge Doughty wrote, “The evidence thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario…the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’.”
.@WalterIsaacson: "Judge Doughty’s decision goes too far … the decision will be refined somewhat, because government has to have the right to have its own free speech, to push back when they see things on social media they think are dangerous.” pic.twitter.com/cwS0M3eK32
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) July 5, 2023
Doughty also highlighted communications between administration officials and social media company employees, which he deemed as “examples of coercion exercised by the White House defendants.” These communications included urgent requests for immediate removal of accounts or content, stressing the involvement of the highest levels of the White House, and flagging tweets for removal.
A federal judge on Tuesday limited the types of contact that Biden administration officials and agencies can have with social media companies about certain protected speech. pic.twitter.com/APG6iGbIFM
— Forbes (@Forbes) July 5, 2023
The judge noted that these requests coincided with threats to change social media regulation, lending them extra credibility due to the Democrats’ control of the White House and Congress. The accusation of collusion between social media platforms and the government is supported by the communication and bureaucracy involved. Doughty mentioned emails referring to the White House and social media companies as “partners” and Twitter providing the White House with a “Partner Support Portal” for expedited review of requests.
The injunction prohibits a long list of agencies and individuals from contacting social media platforms with the intention of pressuring the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.
Doughty emphasized the fundamental principle underlying the First Amendment, stating, “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”
To sum it all up: the recent injunction issued by a federal judge in Louisiana restricts the government’s contact with social media companies in order to moderate content. The ruling acknowledges the allegations of government officials colluding with social media platforms to suppress free speech, specifically targeting conservative viewpoints. This case highlights the importance of upholding the First Amendment and protecting the expression of diverse ideas, even when they are deemed offensive or disagreeable by society.
Major Points:
- Federal judge in Louisiana issues preliminary injunction on Independence Day, forbidding federal agencies and officials from contacting social media companies for content moderation.
- Lawsuit filed by Missouri, Louisiana, and individuals including Martin Kulldorff, Jay Bhattacharya, and Jim Hoft.
- Judge Doughty suggests this could be the most significant attack on free speech in US history and that the government has used its power to silence opposition.
- Injunction applies to President Biden, White House officials, FDA, CDC, Treasury Department, State Department, FBI, Justice Department, and more.
- Case focuses on Covid-19 censorship but also includes allegations of Justice Department suppressing reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop. Judge validates collusion between government and social media platforms, with evidence of coercion and partnership between them.
Comments – Threads and links
- JUST IN: On July 4, a federal judge has enjoined the government from working with big tech to censor citizens’ speech, comparing US government actions during COVID to “an Orwellian Ministry of Truth” censoring Jay Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff and others. – Politico (Left Wing)
- FEDERAL JUDGE: “During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’.” ALX Read below – – – referenced
- Uh oh, it’s worse than just this. This is a federal crime. charges must be brought against these individuals. – IOXX (see below)
- Federal judge orders federal officials to stop colluding with Big Tech to illegally censor Americans WaPo sub-headline: “The Trump-appointed judge’s move could upend years of efforts to enhance coordination between the government and social media companies” What a trash paper. – Mike Davis (see below)
- REAKING: A Federal Judge in Missouri v. Biden just granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the FBI, DOJ, DHS & other agencies from working with Big Tech to censor on social media Big win for the First Amendment on this Independence Day I’m proud to have led the fight. – Eric Schmitt