A federal judge in Lousiana issued a preliminary injunction that bars the Biden regime from colluding with Big Tech to censor Americans exercising their First Amendment rights.
“If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” Judge Terry Doughty, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, noted in the ruling. “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.”
In his 155-page memorandum ruling handed down on July 4, the Trump appointee specified that federal agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Census Bureau, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, the FBI, and the Department of Justice may no longer coordinate with or “coerce” platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Google to silence their political enemies.
The Biden White House has a history of bragging about leveraging relationships with Big Tech companies to suppress information the administration deems “problematic.” In addition to a plethora of federal agencies, the injunction also applies to defendants such as President Joe Biden himself, his press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, his director of digital strategy, and other members of the Executive Office of the President.
“Although this case is still relatively young, and at this stage the Court is only examining it in terms of Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, the evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario,” Doughty wrote.
Doughty said he expects the case, brought by attorneys general Eric Schmitt of Missouri and Jeff Landry of Louisiana, to succeed “on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition” on topics like Covid-19, masking, lockdowns, vaccines, the 2020 election, Biden policies, and the veracity of the Hunter Biden laptop.
“All were suppressed,” Doughty wrote. “It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature. 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.”
Several corporate media outlets lamented Doughty’s decision.
The Washington Post complained that the “Trump-appointed judge’s move could upend years of efforts to enhance coordination between the government and social media companies.”
The New York Times, similarly, bemoaned that the judge handed a victory to Republicans “who claim the administration is trying to silence its critics.”
“Courts are increasingly being forced to weigh in on such issues — with the potential to upend decades of legal norms that have governed speech online,” the NYT warned.
“Amazing that legacy media is way more interested in [regime] approved messaging than fighting for the very Amendment that guarantees their reporting/editorials. Maybe this is an inflection point? Even if it isn’t I’ll never stop fighting for Free Speech in America,” Schmitt wrote in a tweet shortly after the decision.
