Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Says Biden Administration May Have Violated First Amendment by Colluding With Big Tech
Daily Signal ^ | 3/20/23 | Harold Hutchison

Posted on 03/20/2023 2:19:17 PM PDT by CFW

A federal judge ruled against the Biden administration’s efforts to dismiss a case involving online censorship Monday, saying that the states of Missouri and Louisiana had “plausibly alleged” First Amendment violations.

United States District Judge Terry A. Doughty of the Western District of Louisiana denied the Biden administration’s motion to dismiss a suit brought on May 5 by Republican Attorneys General Erik Schmitt of Missouri and Jeff Landry of Louisiana. Schmitt and Landry said the Biden administration colluded with social media companies to censor debate on multiple issues, including the 2020 presidential election and the COVID-19 pandemic.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailysignal.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: biden; bigtech; censorship; terryadoughty; trumpjudge; wdlouisiana
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last
A few state AG's are doing good work in pushing back against the Biden cabal and their corrupt and unconstitutional policies.
1 posted on 03/20/2023 2:19:17 PM PDT by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CFW

From the judge’s ruling:

“Plaintiffs have clearly and plausibly alleged that Defendants engaged in viewpoint discrimination and prior restraints. As discussed in great detail above, Plaintiffs allege a regime of censorship that targets specific viewpoints deemed mis-, dis-, or malinformation by federal officials,” Doughty added. “Because Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are targeting particular views taken by speakers on a specific subject, they have alleged a clear violation of the First Amendment, i.e., viewpoint discrimination. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, by placing bans, shadow-bans, and other forms of restrictions on Plaintiffs’ social-media accounts, are engaged in de facto prior restraints, another clear violation of the First Amendment.”


2 posted on 03/20/2023 2:21:10 PM PDT by CFW (old and retired)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Laws are made to punish conservatives and reward Marxists and BLM.

Once we learn that we can relax and stop tormenting ourselves trying to figure it all out.

Like professional wrestling, it’s fixed.


3 posted on 03/20/2023 2:21:11 PM PDT by frank ballenger (You have summoned up a thundercloud. You're gonna hear from me. Anthem by Leonard Cohen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Well, according to joementia, they aren’t “absolute” anyway. 🤔


4 posted on 03/20/2023 2:21:51 PM PDT by rktman (Destroy America from within? Check! WTH? Enlisted USN 1967 to end up with this? 😕)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T.B. Yoits
May have?

They have the paychecks of embedded Feds to prove it.

5 posted on 03/20/2023 2:23:31 PM PDT by T.B. Yoits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court many years ago, Created out of thin air, a “legal fiction” called, Qualified Immunity. Until they reverse their MADE UP LAW, nothing will happen.


6 posted on 03/20/2023 2:23:47 PM PDT by eyeamok (founded in cynicism, wrapped in sarcasm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Ya think??


7 posted on 03/20/2023 2:24:20 PM PDT by cld51860 (We’re doomed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

REPUBLICANS - WHERE ARE YOU?

Do you have any idea of what the D’s would be doing? Investigations! Impeachment hearings! We only have one side engaging in Lawfare! If it goes unchecked it’ll just continue (ahem PDJT!). How about we give the goose the same as the gander, maybe they’ll think twice before engaging in the insanity.


8 posted on 03/20/2023 2:26:01 PM PDT by fuzzylogic (welfare state = sharing of poor moral choices among everybody)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

The ends justified the means.

Not a damn thing will happen to any of them.


9 posted on 03/20/2023 2:26:20 PM PDT by unixfox (Abolish Slavery, Repeal the 16th Amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

So how much in damages are they going to assess?

These AG’s ought to seek relief in the form of permanent secession from the federal government since the federal government has wantonly violated the constitution and $1 Trillion in damages for their citizens.


10 posted on 03/20/2023 2:28:07 PM PDT by shotgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW


11 posted on 03/20/2023 2:29:49 PM PDT by caww (O death, when you seized my Lord, you lost your grip on me......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

It depends on how well you can misinterpret the Constitution.


12 posted on 03/20/2023 2:33:15 PM PDT by Telepathic Intruder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW; Noumenon
In case you haven't read about the Virality Project, you owe it to yourself to take the time.

And just consider - if this can be whipped up using open source tools by people at Stanford - tagging and censoring BILLIONS of social media posts on every platform known to man - consider how far the spooks in the Deep State have come.

And consider this, as well - they've moved on, not really publicly, but hidden in plain sight, to not "disinformation", not "misinformation", but "malinformation" - that's something that's true, but that does not serve Big Brother.

A lot of the drones working on the Virality Project are apparently undergraduates, doing what they are doing because they are desperate to be well thought of by the Big People behind all this.

It makes the recent Red Front eruption at Stanford more understandable. They are turning out Red Guards, who are now allowed to operate in the open.

This is American Stasi, built right under our noses - and it is not going to be easy to remove.

13 posted on 03/20/2023 2:45:19 PM PDT by Jim Noble (You have sat too long for any good you have been doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Ya think?


14 posted on 03/20/2023 2:57:39 PM PDT by Williams (Stop Tolerating The Intolerant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW
United States District Judge Terry A. Doughty of the Western District of Louisiana denied the Biden administration’s motion to dismiss a suit brought on May 5 by Republican Attorneys General Erik Schmitt of Missouri and Jeff Landry of Louisiana. Schmitt and Landry said the Biden administration colluded with social media companies to censor debate on multiple issues, including the 2020 presidential election and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Seems that should be enough to trigger some felony indictments or grand jury seating?

15 posted on 03/20/2023 2:59:16 PM PDT by eeriegeno (Checks and balances??? What checks and balances?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

biden did, and it’s a real crime, not what they are accusing Trump of. When do they arrest biden?


16 posted on 03/20/2023 3:09:16 PM PDT by I want the USA back (News media and democrats are pond scum. My pronouns: Haha, heehee, hoho, hoo )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T.B. Yoits
May have?

This is a rule on a motion to dismiss based upon the pleadings. The allegations in the pleadings at this stage are assumed to be true and the only question is whether they are legally sufficient to sustain a trial by a finder of fact.

At this point, it is not for the judge to determine what did, in fact, happen, but only if it did happen as alleged it would be a violation of law and that it is within the powers of the court to provide relief.

17 posted on 03/20/2023 3:13:45 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CFW
The Supreme Court in Bivens vs. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Narcotics Bureau, 403 U.S. 388, (1971) indicated civil actions could be brought against federal officers for violations of constitutional rights.

In Anderson vs. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987 SCOTUS determined the boundaries of qualified immunity by writing that "Government officials can be held liable for civil damages if their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights".

Seems pretty clear to me that they must've known what they were doing, violated the constitution and that freedom of speech is as clearly defined a right as could be. I'm surprised an enterprising lawyer hasn't filed a class action Bivens action, using the proceeds to fund "True the Vote" or similar groups. Plus, a judgment against these retired FBI agents would devastate their federal pensions (Baker, Thibeault, et al.) and probably wouldn't be dischargable in bankruptcy. p
18 posted on 03/20/2023 3:14:05 PM PDT by krogers58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eeriegeno

The system is no longer capable of reform from within. Who do you imagine is going to seat these grand juries and try these cases, and hear their appeals?

My heavens, there are patriots in pretrial detention for >2 years! That oddball with the Viking getup was denied exculpatory evidence in possession of the government which is an automatic dismissal for misconduct, and no motions have been filed.

The “two parties” are in on this together, and voting harder won’t change that.


19 posted on 03/20/2023 3:15:33 PM PDT by Jim Noble (You have sat too long for any good you have been doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok
Qualified Immunity.

Irrelevant because this is a suit presumably to enjoin the government from acting agains the first ammendment rights of the citizens of the US. It is about the actions of the government qua goverment, and is not tryig to personally hold federal officials accountable individually.

20 posted on 03/20/2023 3:16:56 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson