Posted on 07/11/2023 4:41:11 PM PDT by CFW
The judge has issued a Memorandum ruling on the government’s Motion to Stay Injunction in Missouri v. Biden. It’s another amazing day for freedom.
The judge first goes through the criteria for granting an injunction.
[embedded court document]
The court AGAIN states they feel the plaintiffs will succeed on the merits, but he also adds something—that the White House defendants and the Surgeon General Defendants were found to have likely engaged in the coercion of social media companies. He then goes on to AGAIN give examples.
[embedded court document]
Read this, legacy media. Everyone else should read it too. The White House and Surgeon General demanded that social media platforms censor Americans and used coercion to get there. How many times does this need to be in writing for you to get it??
(Excerpt) Read more at uncoverdc.com ...
For people who haven’t noticed, the fact that the Feds can no longer intrude on social media (at least for now) has made the dialogue on certain topics, particularly Ukraine, FAR MORE CIVILIZED.
“For people who haven’t noticed, the fact that the Feds can no longer intrude on social media (at least for now) has made the dialogue on certain topics, particularly Ukraine, FAR MORE CIVILIZED.”
That’s good to hear! I’m not on Twitter but if this judge is making a difference, I’m here cheering away!
I haven’t heard a discussion of whether deliberate violations of the Judge’s order after he has been so particular in his ruling, would warrant a violator being held personally liable if they disobey and try to have Twitter or Facebook posts removed. Government employees hide behind sovereign immunity when violating rights but the judge’s specificity may bar them from doing so in this case. I wish some law professors and First Amendment attorneys would chime in on that issue.
What the government was doing also amounts to a form of prior restraint which courts forbade back during the Vietnam era. Just because the social media companies are mostly sympathetic to and compliant with requests from government agents and agencies - and have exemptions as publishers - it still amounts to restraint of speech.
It’s not a new argument, really, if you go back 50 years even. Just a new medium. And as many have argued for years, which this case brings to court, the town square has “moved” from a soap box in the park or in front of city hall to a tiny screen in your pocket. The same rules and rights and prohibitions need to apply in both physical and virtual locations.
Bttt
I notice that the judge’s Order has one factual error. From my reading it appears the Judge said the article regarding Hunter’s laptop was published by the “Washington Post”. I hope that scrivener’s error was corrected to the “New York Post” by the judge prior to it being filed with the Clerk.
However, by bringing up that instance as an example is the judge saying, Biden administration, I have your number!”
Why would the judge say he felt the plaintiffs would succeed on the merits?
Aren’t the plaintiffs the government?
(confused)
Government Agency’s are the DEFENDANTS.
Plantiff is the party that initiated the legal case against Federal Government
Ok many thanks!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.