Posted on 10/25/2023 3:07:23 AM PDT by Texas Fossil
Our highest court will decide whether the 5th Circuit's injunction against the government stands in our landmark free speech case
The Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments over the Fifth Circuit’s grant of a preliminary injunction in Missouri v. Biden. As I mentioned in previous posts, the injunction would bar officials from the White House, CDC, FBI, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and Surgeon General’s office from coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech. My fellow plaintiffs and I welcome this opportunity to defend the First Amendment rights of all Americans in the U.S. Supreme Court. We expect to hear from the Court soon regarding the hearing dates—it could be in February or March.
The Fifth Circuit panel of judges last month upheld the key components of U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty’s July 4 preliminary injunction order, prohibiting named federal officials from coercing or significantly encouraging social media companies to suppress legal speech. That decision vindicated our claims that we—and countless other Americans—were blacklisted, shadow-banned, de-boosted, throttled, and suspended on social media as part of the government’s years-long censorship campaign orchestrated by the federal government.
The Biden Administration’s censorship regime has successfully suppressed perspectives contradicting government-approved views on hotly disputed topics such as whether natural immunity to covid exists, the safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines, the virus’s origins, and mask mandate efficacy. Beyond covid, the documents we’ve obtained on discovery demonstrate that the government was also censoring critiques of its foreign policy, monetary policy, election infrastructure, and lighting rod social issues from abortion to gender ideology.
The vast, coordinated, and well-documented effort has silenced influential, highly qualified voices including doctors and scientists like my co-plaintiffs Dr. Bhattacharya and Dr. Kulldorff, as well as those like Jill Hines who have tried to raise awareness of issues. Though the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily stayed the Fifth Circuit’s injunction until they make a ruling, I believes the Justices are ultimately unlikely to permit the egregious First Amendment abridgements our case has exposed.
The Fifth Circuit recognized that the Plaintiffs did “not challenge the social-media platforms’ content-moderation policies.” Rather, Plaintiffs challenged the government’s unlawful efforts to influence “enforcement of those policies.” The government gravely harmed the ability of Americans to convey their views to the public, and it deprived Americans of their right to hear opinions that differ from the government’s. Judge Doughty strikingly described the Administration’s conduct as “arguably the most massive attack against free speech in United States history” and “akin to an Orwellian Ministry of Truth.” He was right, and the U.S. Supreme Court must not permit it.
Here are some reactions to the news from our lawyers at NCLA:
“NCLA is thrilled to have the opportunity to vindicate the First Amendment rights of our clients, and all Americans, in the nation’s highest court. We are confident that after a thorough review of the disturbing facts in this important case—which involves unprecedented government-imposed, viewpoint-based censorship—the Court will recognize the grievous, unconstitutional nature of the government’s conduct and enjoin it.”
— Jenin Younes, Litigation Counsel, NCLA“We are disappointed Americans’ First Amendment rights will be vulnerable to government infringement until this case is decided. But we are confident this Court, as strong as it is on First Amendment issues, will rule against the government and uphold our clients’ rights and liberties.”
— John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA“If anything, the Fifth Circuit’s decision did not go far enough in enjoining the reprehensible conduct exposed in this case. The facts of this case show government agencies censored speech in a deliberate effort to control the narrative on several controversial topics ahead of the last election. The First Amendment forbids such censorship, and the Supreme Court must never allow such mischief again, if we are to keep our democracy.”
— Mark Chenoweth, President, NCLA
He and his friends have struggled for a long time trying to expose the Truth about medical issues. And for that effort were silenced by the Government and the Media.
I am so very happy that the Surpreme Court will hear their case (for our nation).
The only phrase I reacted to in this is the final "if we are to keep our democracy". While it is an accurate phrase, the #ComDem misuse of the words "our Democracy" to the point that in common use today "our" democracy is the Communist Democrat version. As a consequence I immediately react to that phrase with reservation.
May God Bless the USA and guide the decision of the Supreme Court.
The Fifth Circuit upheld key components of the preliminary injunction prohibiting named Biden federal officials from coercing or significantly encouraging social media companies to suppress legal speech.
That decision vindicated claims that countless Americans—were blacklisted, shadow-banned, de-boosted, throttled, and suspended on social media as part of the Biden government’s years-long censorship campaign.
Fedgov f*ckers are above the law. *No* court ruling is gonna stop them or their sycophants.
IIRC, there is federal law that makes it a felony for government officials to deny Americans their Constitutional rights.
Does that mean Mz. Malarkey’s job is in jeopardy?
This is actually The Corrupt Establishment v The American People and is in fact a coup d'état.
The feckless Supreme Court is asleep at the wheel.
“IIRC, there is federal law that makes it a felony for government officials to deny Americans their Constitutional rights.”
18USC242 is the criminal statute. 18USC1983 makes them civilly liable for damages.
L
Yes!
But, the ☭#Dem’s have deemed themselves “above the Law”.
So to do whatever they please.
Pelosi: “We make up the rules as we go along”
Yes!
But, the ☭#Dem’s have deemed themselves “above the Law”.
So to do whatever they please.
Pelosi: “We make up the rules as we go along”
Ask the J6 people that are in jail if that's working out for them.
AKA psychopaths.
More info here: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/10/fight-first-amendment-lawsuit-against-govt-related-entities/
Thanks for supporting link
“The only phrase I reacted to in this is the final “if we are to keep our democracy”. While it is an accurate phrase, ….”
——————
Actually, it is not an accurate phrase. The United States of America has never been, is not, and should never be a “democracy.“ In a democracy the majority rules no matter what. 50% of the votes plus one can deny everyone else in the society of all of their rights, up to and including the right to live. No, we are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. There are long ago agreed to written limitations on the power of government, limitations that are virtually impossible to overturn while correctly, using the mechanisms set forth in our written constitution. While our representatives in government are democratically elected (well, in theory, if one side doesn’t massively cheat), we are not a democracy. 50% plus one can’t do what they want, and thank God for that.
I do, however, agree with your very serious reservations about the term, “our democracy,“ as used by Democrats and other radical leftists. It does, indeed, refer to a form of government (and corporate) rule over the people of this country that benefits them alone, but that’s not the form of government that everyone else knows exists in this country. Their use of that term is a dog whistle which betrays the fact that they are a bunch of tyrant wannabes.
The USSC including Trumps two newest picks have already made it very clear that they are all for government Censorship on social media.
Our Representative Republic with limited Democratic elements...
The J6 victims either plead guilty or were found guilty by an impartial DC Obama jury of their peers doncha’ know?
Censorship for untruth is one thing.
Censoring of difference of opinion, or censoring your political enemies is quite another.
Freedom of Expression is part of the 1st Amendment.
And it will never be changed in wording the same way the 2nd Amendment is protected.
The States cannot over rule the Bill of Rights. But the Fed Gov has overstepped that by decree within agencies. Which is outside the authority, unless congress delegates it. But the Courts have in some cases said the Congress cannot delegate those powers.
I never said we were a democracy.
I said the phrase is a legitimate phrase. But the ComDems have twisted the meaning of the words to reflect something opposite of the original meaning.
That is the favorite trick of Satan, who’s children are those turning the world upside down.
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.