In a highly significant ruling on the 4th of July, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the White House, FBI, Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), State Department, and other agencies from colluding with Big Tech to censor speech on social media.
In his 155-page ruling U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty of Louisiana compared the Biden regime to an “Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’” and called its censorship activities “almost dystopian.”
The judge’s injunction came in the Missouri v. Biden lawsuit led by the Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana.
Last September, then-Attorney General Eric Schmitt of Missouri and Attorney General Jeff Landry of Louisiana released communications between federal officials and social media companies revealing how the Biden regime and Big Tech coordinated to silence opposing views on a number of topics—including COVID-19 vaccines, the origin of the pandemic, election integrity, and Hunter Biden’s laptop—in what they called “a vast censorship enterprise.”
The communications, which were obtained pursuant to a court order, revealed that Biden officials held weekly censorship meetings with social media companies to suppress posts about the COVID vaccines that countered the regime’s “safe and effective” narrative.
“It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature,” Doughty wrote in his ruling. “This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech. American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country.”
“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,’” the judge added. “[T]he evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario.”
Doughty declared that the plaintiffs had “presented substantial evidence in support of their claims that they were the victims of a far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign.”
The judge’s injunction “ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED” the government agencies from taking the following actions as to social-media companies:
(1) meeting with social-media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging,
pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content
containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms;(2) specifically flagging content or posts on social-media platforms and/or forwarding
such to social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for
removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech;(3) urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner social-media
companies to change their guidelines for removing, deleting, suppressing, or reducing content
containing protected free speech;(4) emailing, calling, sending letters, texting, or engaging in any communication of any
kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for
removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech;(5) collaborating, coordinating, partnering, switchboarding, and/or jointly working
with the Election Integrity Partnership, the Virality Project, the Stanford Internet Observatory, or
any like project or group for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any
manner removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content posted with social-media
companies containing protected free speech;(6) threatening, pressuring, or coercing social-media companies in any manner to
remove, delete, suppress, or reduce posted content of postings containing protected free speech;(7) taking any action such as urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any
manner social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce posted content protected
by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution;(8) following up with social-media companies to determine whether the social-media
companies removed, deleted, suppressed, or reduced previous social-media postings containing
protected free speech;(9) requesting content reports from social-media companies detailing actions taken to
remove, delete, suppress, or reduce content containing protected free speech; and(10) notifying social-media companies to Be on The Lookout (“BOLO”) for postings
containing protected free speech.
Schmitt, now a Republican U.S. senator from Missouri, celebrated the “Big win for the First Amendment” on Twitter, Tuesday.
“I’m proud to have led the fight,” Schmitt wrote.
The senator added that “the White House officials, CDC [Centers for Disease Control and prevention] and others are stopped cold. We need to continue the fight to take down the Vast Censorship Enterprise,” and said this was the “most important free speech case in a generation.”
White House officials, CDC & others are stopped cold. We need to continue the fight to take down the Vast Censorship Enterprise.
Their view of “misinformation” isn’t an excuse to censor. This is the most important free speech case in a generation.
Freedom is on the march
— Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) July 4, 2023