In court Thursday, the Justice Department intends to argue for lifting an order banning the government from coordinating with social media companies to censor Americans. Reportedly, the DOJ will ask the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, to block a July 4 order issued by U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty, which prevents White House officials and federal agencies from meeting with tech companies about social media censorship.
Doughty’s order argued that such actions likely violated the First Amendment. The scathing Independence Day injunction, which the Biden administration is now fighting to repeal, essentially said that the government's actions, during the pandemic were akin to "an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.'"
On July 4, Doughty’s order, came as the culmination of a legal battle brought by Republican state attorneys general from Missouri and Louisiana, that accused high-ranking government officials of working with giant social media companies "under the guise of combating misinformation". Doughty claimed that the resultant collusion ultimately led to censoring speech on topics, that included the COVID-19 origins, Hunter Biden’s laptop, and the efficacy of the use of face masks.
Sen. Eric Schmitt, (R) Mo stated that the government’s Big Tech censorship should “scare the bejesus” out of all Americans. He emphasized concerns over the Biden administration and the federal governments’ efforts to censor Americans, through Big Tech and social media.
Doughty’s injunction, in July added-
"If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,"... "In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech." …
[concluding that the Biden administration] "likely violate[d]the Free Speech Clause" [that the court] "is not persuaded by Defendants’ arguments," and…"Viewpoint discrimination is an especially egregious form of content discrimination. The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction."
-U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty
In the injunction, Doughty also claimed that "the censorship alleged in this case almost exclusively targeted conservative speech," but that the issues that this case raises are "beyond party lines." It is literally a matter of protected speech that is in question here.
Immediately appealing the injunction, the DOJ, arguing that the government faced "irreparable harm", because Doughty's order may prevent the federal government from "working with social media companies on initiatives to prevent grave harm to the American people and our democratic processes." Both parties will argue before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals at 2:00 p.m. Thursday.
Intending to defend the injunction in court on Thursday, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, said the injunction was a-
"huge win in the fight to safeguard our most fundamental freedoms," [and] "Joe Biden's Department of Justice actually had the audacity to argue that the nation would suffer 'irreparable harm' if they weren't allowed to continue violating Americans' First Amendment right,"
"Make no mistake - without this injunction, there is nothing stopping Joe Biden from continuing to censor political speech. The federal government cannot be trusted to protect Americans' rights, which is precisely why our Founders enshrined the First Amendment into the Constitution,"
-Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey
The New Civil Liberties Alliance legal group, who also have plaintiffs in the lawsuit, alleging they were censored by Big Tech with the government's help. In an interview with Fox News, they claimed that they are "confident" that the Fifth Circuit will agree with the District Court's findings that-
"the evidence shows significant First Amendment violations."…"The relentless and significant pressure the White House, the Surgeon General, the FBI, and other government actors placed on social-media companies to eliminate and reduce the speech of American citizens went far beyond permissible position statements and suggestions,"
-Zhonette Brown, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
That the DOJ would so openly argue for the blocking of this injunction is very telling. Literally it means that this administration as well as the “deep state” have been very successful at circumventing Americans First Amendment rights. They do not wish to lose this highly effective (notably) tool in their arsenal, to affect what Americans are allowed to know, and resultantly may act upon, that supports their political agenda. Brazen does not begin to describe the audacity of these persons.
When will those involved in this censorship, see jail time for what they have effectively stolen, through manipulation, from America’s citizenry? And – how do you replace/restore freedoms lost?
Bailey said it best-
“The federal government cannot be trusted to protect Americans' rights”
-Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey