Ad Code

Responsive Advertisement

Federal Judge Rules Biden Administration Colluded With Big Tech To Censor Conservatives, Bans More Censorship In Injunction

SHREVEPORT, LA. - In the case of Missouri v. Biden, a federal judge in Louisiana made a ruling on Independence Day. The judge stated that the Biden Administration may have potentially violated the First Amendment free speech rights of Americans by suppressing and censoring social media posts during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The judge has also issued a preliminary injunction that restricts several federal agencies and officials, such as the Department of Justice and FBI, from engaging with social media companies in order to manipulate protected speech. 

The 155-page ruling is a response to a legal challenge brought by attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri. They claimed that the federal government exerted pressure or encouragement on big technology firms like Google, Meta, Twitter, and others to suspend or censor social media accounts and posts that were deemed unfavorable by the government.


In the July 4 ruling, Chief U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty for the Western District of Louisiana stated that the plaintiffs in the case have presented evidence suggesting that there was a significant attempt by the defendants, including the White House and federal agencies, to restrict speech based on its content.

Click here for the latest news updates and to join in the conversation.

Judge Doughty mentioned various viewpoints, including skepticism towards COVID-19 vaccines, questioning the effectiveness of masks and lockdowns, doubting the lab-leak theory of COVID-19, questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 election, disagreeing with President Biden's policies, expressing belief in the truth of the Hunter Biden laptop story, and opposing the policies of current government officials. All individuals or groups involved were subjected to suppression. 

Judge Doughty said that the evidence presented in the case portrays a scenario that resembles a dystopian setting. 

Judge Doughty wrote that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States Government appeared to have taken on a role that some may compare to an Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth.' This period was marked by widespread doubt and uncertainty. 

If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are accurate, the present case could potentially be seen as one of the most significant challenges to free speech by a sitting President in the history of the United States. According to Judge Doughty, it is alleged that the Federal Government, including the Defendants mentioned, have disregarded the First Amendment's protection of free speech in their efforts to suppress what they believe to be disinformation. 

The injunction restricts the U.S. State Department, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Health and Human Services, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and approximately 40 cabinet members and federal officials from interacting with social media companies, except in cases involving criminal activity and national security threats. 

According to the injunction, various methods such as meetings, emails, phone calls, follow-up meetings, and the influence of the government were utilized to shape public narratives. in the injunction, Judge Doughty prohibited government entities from communicating with social media companies in a way that urges or pressures them to remove or suppress content containing protected free speech. 

The injunction became effective without delay.

The Missouri Attorney General previously released a large collection of documents, which he asserts as evidence supporting the claim that the Biden Administration engaged in speech censorship.

The documents that were released reportedly showed:

The White House requested Twitter to moderate the content shared by Robert Kennedy, Jr., who has been critical of the White House's COVID-19 narrative.

The White House requested Facebook to take action regarding conservative voices Tucker Carlson and Tomi Lahren.

White House Digital Director Robert Flaherty expressing his indifference towards products that do not have a measurable impact in suppressing speech, while addressing Facebook.

Flaherty stating that there is a concern about misinformation surrounding the vaccine, which was shared at a high level within the White House.

Flaherty requesting that Facebook increase its efforts to "remove inaccurate information" regarding vaccines.

Regarding posts about "anti-vax" beliefs, Flaherty suggested to Facebook that it may be reasonable to implement measures to reduce their spread.

Facebook stating that they are committed to addressing vaccine misinformation and also were working on minimizing the spread of content that discourages vaccines but does not contain actionable misinformation, including content that was often true.

Flaherty holding a differing opinion from Facebook's choice to not remove a Tucker Carlson video regarding COVID-19 vaccines. He said he believed that a previous similar situation resulted in an insurrection.

Flaherty expressed concern to Twitter about the potential presence of misinformation in tweets, highlighting it as a significant matter.

Facebook allegedly claiming to remove content that public health authorities have deemed debunked or unsupported by evidence.

Flaherty criticizing Twitter for alleged inconsistency in enforcing its policies and accommodating certain types of speech, following Twitter's decision to not comply with the White House's request to remove a video.

Mat Staver, the Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, believes the Biden Administration's actions of censoring protected speech are seen as shameful and unprecedented, as they go against the United States' fundamental liberties. He argues that this censorship is considered one of the most significant in history, as it allegedly hindered the spread of crucial information that could have potentially saved lives. 

He said he believes the U.S. Constitution prohibits government officials from indirectly engaging in actions through private actors that government officials are directly prevented from doing, and that there is a need to address concerns about the federal government's adherence to the law.

Post a Comment