ICYMI: There’s an injunction pending in federal court which could cripple Big Brother’s ability to suppress conservative speech. Louisiana Judge Terry A. Doughty gets to decide whether Joe Biden’s handlers “violated the First Amendment by censoring users on social media over topics like COVID and election security.” If they did, the next question is what gets done about it. Until it all gets sorted out, the judge could put a temporary halt to all the shady activity.
Preliminary injunction relief
There’s a preliminary injunction pending which could really snarl the social media censorship of free speech. Prosecutors in Missouri teamed up with their Louisiana counterparts to sue the Biden regime for violating the First Amendment.
The conservative run states allege that Biden’s handlers “fostered a sprawling ‘federal censorship enterprise‘ that pressured social-media platforms to scrub away dissenting views, including criticism of mask mandates and objections to Covid-19 vaccination.”
The presiding judge is likely to grant the injunction. Judge Doughty was appointed by President Donald Trump. He’s also “considering whether to intervene in communications between the U.S. government and top social media sites like Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and LinkedIn, among others.”
“It’s not every day that a federal judge asks attorneys representing the president if they’ve read their “1984.”
Yet Judge Terry A. Doughty did just that last month, invoking the dystopian novel in questioning lawyers for @POTUS , Dr. Anthony Fauci, @SecMayorkas, and other… pic.twitter.com/Tk0Omq2LRu— Fibci (@Fibci2) June 10, 2023
Merrick Garland, who thinks he really runs this country because he’s never going to prosecute himself, tried to have the suit tossed out. It didn’t work. “In late March, Doughty refused to dismiss the suit, noting the free-speech claims were credible enough to move the case forward.”
The injunction is only the beginning. This case is considered “among the most potentially consequential First Amendment battles pending in the courts, testing the limits on government policing of social-media content.”
The plaintiffs claim “social media sites violated the First Amendment by over-censoring users on social media over topics like COVID and election security. However, the DOJ claims bans were necessary for public health and safety.”
Stop the censorship, now
If Doughty rules in favor of granting the preliminary injunction, it will have the effect of preventing Joe’s minions from “taking any steps to demand, urge, encourage, pressure, coerce, deceive, collude with or otherwise induce” social media platforms “to censor disliked users, content and viewpoints.”
When Elon Musk bought Twitter he kicked over the hornet’s nest by exposing it all.
Early in the litigation phase, the judge “permitted plaintiffs to gather evidence, like emails exchanged between White House officials and leadership at social media companies.” That’s all icing on the cake after the Twitter Files releases. Making the Deep State even more nervous, “Officials in Missouri and Louisiana were allowed to depose high-ranking government officials, including the face of America’s response to the pandemic, Dr. Anthony Fauci.”
One of the first things I said in my testimony — to Jim Jordan — was that we’d also seen suppression of the yellow vest movement and channels like Telesur and “that in fact is a key point of the Twitter files, that it is neither a left nor right issue.” https://t.co/kWqlM0qlbB
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) June 17, 2023
The injunction would make YouTube, Facebook, and all the rest stop censoring things at the request of any federal official. Just in time for all the Biden family bribery controversy to ramp up in full swing.
From what they’ve already gathered, the prosecutors have enough to argue that “the Federal Bureau of Instigation, the State Department’s Global Engagement Center and the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency colluded with social-media platforms.” Not just once or twice but “in hundreds of meetings about misinformation.”
The feds systematically flagged “huge quantities of First Amendment-protected speech to platforms for censorship.” They have all sorts of “emails sent between the White House and social media executives,” to support the need for a preliminary injunction. In response, the government typed up a 300-page brief denying the allegations. We’ll see who the judge believes.
