Yesterday (it is technically past midnight, after all), we celebrated America’s 247th birthday, and guess what? Federal District Judge Terry A. Doughty got us a present! Yep, we are still celebrating the fact that he granted of a preliminary injunction in Missouri v. Biden, a landmark ruling vindicating freedom of expression for millions of Americans.
As we told you, this is a huge decision. The court held that the Plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving that many federal agencies and personnel in the Biden administration improperly coerced and encouraged social media companies to suppress lawful speech, in violation of the First Amendment. As of this minute, you are freer to discuss the truth on social media than before because of this decision. We expect that there is likely to be an appeal—most likely before the case is over. But even a loss on appeal is a big deal: It would just be would be a huge loss, rather than a huge victory.
We will talk in a minute about some of the reactions to yesterday's decision, but we will first dive pretty deep into the decision itself.
First, who are the plaintiffs? The State of Missouri, the State of Louisiana, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Jim Hoft, Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya, and Jill Hines. The two states need no introduction, and there’s a good chance you know Jim Hoft is pretty much head of GatewayPundit. But we admit to ignorance about some of the other people on the list. So let’s quote from the opinion about them:
Plaintiffs Bhattacharya and Kulldorff are infectious disease epidemiologists and co-authors of The Great Barrington Declaration (‘GBD’). The GBD was published on October 4, 2020. The GBD criticized lockdown policies and expressed concern about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of lockdowns.
So, they were scientific and philosophical skeptics of the response to COVID and allege they were censored in various ways on social media.
Plaintiff Jill Hines is Co-Director of Health Freedom Louisiana, a consumer and human rights advocacy organization. Hines alleges she was censored by Defendants because she advocated against the use of masks mandates on young children.
She was part of ‘reopen Louisiana’ so it shouldn’t surprise you that she was censored.
Plaintiff Dr. Kheriaty is a psychiatrist who has taught at several universities and written numerous articles. He had approximately 158,000 Twitter followers in December 2021 and approximately 1,333 LinkedIn connections. Dr. Kheriaty alleges he began experiencing censorship on Twitter and LinkedIn after posting content opposing COVID-19 lockdowns and vaccine mandates.
Who are the defendants, then? According to the opinion, they include: President Joseph R Biden, Jr., Karine Jean-Pierre, Xavier Becerra, Dept of Health & Human Services (‘HHS’), National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases (‘NIAID’), Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (‘CDC’), Alejandro Mayorkas, Dept of Homeland Security (‘DHS’), Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (‘CISA’), United States Census Bureau (‘Census Bureau’), U. S. Dept of Commerce (‘Commerce’), U. S. Dept of Justice (‘DOJ’), Federal Bureau of Investigation (‘FBI’), U. S. Food & Drug Administration (‘FDA’), U. S. Dept of State (‘State’), Leah Bray (‘Bray’), U. S. Dept of Treasury (‘Treasury’), U. S. Election Assistance Commission (‘EAC’). That’s not the complete list, but it’s everyone we think most people have a decent chance of hearing of.
There were also a few names that were initially part of the suit who are no longer defendants. For instance, there is Nina Jankowicz, who was going to be part of the Department of Homeland Security’s ministry of truth. Since it was disbanded the court apparently sees any action against them as moot. Anthony Fauci was another former defendant. Without looking into it, we would expect that they sued him in his official capacity, which means upon retiring, the case against him was dropped. Still he does get rebuked to a degree in this case, anyway.
At the heart of the case is the question of whether Facebook, YouTube, Twitter (pre-Elon-Musk), and other social platforms were censoring purely out of their own desires (or potentially, their non-governmental advertisers’ desires), or if this was done under the improper influence of the government. After all, when the government is forbidden from doing something—in this case, regulating the expression of private citizens—it is forbidden from doing it by any means.
That takes you through page after page of the facts, the court describing one deposition after another. And what emerges is the government and these various social media platforms had entered into an extremely tight relationship. The defendants—Biden, et al.—argued that they were just asking these platforms nicely to remove disinformation. But the way these government officials were acting, it wasn’t really a request. These government officials treated these personnel at the social media companies like they worked for them.
Recommended
For instance, we have this incident:
On February 6, 2021, [Rob Flaherty, former Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Digital Strategy] requested Twitter to remove a parody account linked to Finnegan Biden, Hunter Biden’s daughter and President Biden’s granddaughter. The request stated, ‘Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately,’ and ‘Please remove this account immediately.’ Twitter suspended the parody account within forty-five minutes of Flaherty’s request.
(Going forward, we will cut out footnote references without noting it.)
Flaherty said ‘jump’ and Twitter pretty much said ‘how high?’ The same Flaherty also demanded reports from social media companies like they were his underlings:
On March 15, 2021, Flaherty … demanded a report from Facebook on a recent Washington Post article that accused Facebook of allowing the spread of information leading to vaccine hesitancy. Flaherty emailed the Washington Post article to Facebook the day before, with the subject line: ‘You are hiding the ball,’ and stated ‘I’ve been asking you guys pretty directly, over a series of conversations, for a clear accounting of the biggest issues you are seeing on your platform when it comes to vaccine hesitancy and the degree to which borderline content as you define it – is playing a role.’
The opinion goes on to quote an email from him which sounds very threatening:
I will also be the first to acknowledge that borderline content offers no easy solutions. But we want to know that you’re trying, we want to know how we can help, and we want to know that you’re not playing a shell game with us when we ask you what is going on. This would all be a lot easier if you would just be straight with us.
An employee of Facebook responded:
We obviously have work to do to gain your trust…We are also working to get you useful information that’s on the level. That’s my job and I take it seriously – I’ll continue to do it to the best of my ability, and I’ll expect you to hold me accountable.
Andrew Slavitt, former White House Senior COVID-19 Advisor, had been cc’ed on all of this, and decided to add some fuel to the fire:
Slavitt … responded, accusing Facebook of not being straightforward, and added more pressure by stating, ‘internally, we have been considering our options on what to do about it.’
When there was a pause in the administration of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, Flaherty was concerned that the pause might lead to vaccine hesitancy. So, Flaherty had new instructions for Facebook:
On April 14, 2021, Flaherty demanded the censorship of Fox News hosts Tucker Carlson and Tomi Lahren because the top post about vaccines that day was ‘Tucker Carlson saying vaccines don’t work and Tomi Lahren stating she won’t take a vaccine.’ Flaherty stated, ‘This is exactly why I want to know what ‘Reduction’ actually looks like – if ‘reduction’ means ‘pumping our most vaccine hesitant audience with Tucker Carlson saying it does not work’… then…I’m not sure it’s reduction!’
Facebook promised the White House a report by the end of the week.
Does that sound like a person asking nicely for a favor from someone who might refuse? Or someone who feels they have the right to order the other side around? And this goes on for pages upon pages, involving multiple officials in multiple departments. Bluntly, if you are skeptical of our account, read it for yourself. They kept demanding censorship of social media, and constantly demanding that they answer to them like they were their underlings.
And there were also threats. They were never quite explicit, it was more in the that’s-a-nice-social-media-platform-it’d-be-a-shame-if-something-happened-to it variety. For instance, here is Jen Psaki playing mob enforcer:
On May 5, 2021, then-White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki (‘Psaki’) publicly began pushing Facebook and other social-media platforms to censor COVID-19 misinformation. At a White House Press Conference, Psaki publicly reminded Facebook and other social-media platforms of the threat of ‘legal consequences’ if they do not censor misinformation more aggressively. Psaki further stated: ‘The President’s view is that the major platforms have a responsibility related to the health and safety of all Americans to stop amplifying untrustworthy content, disinformation, and misinformation, especially related to COVID-19 vaccinations and elections.’ Psaki linked the threat of a ‘robust anti-trust program’ with the White House’s censorship demand. ‘He also supports better privacy protections and a robust anti-trust program. So, his view is that there’s more that needs to be done to ensure that this type of misinformation; disinformation; damaging, sometime life-threatening information, is not going out to the American public.’
The threat of anti-trust enforcement is significant because Zuckerberg has said it was an ‘existential threat’ to Facebook.
Then we have this passage:
The next day, on July 16, 2021, President Biden, after being asked what his message was to social-media platforms when it came to COVID-19, stated, ‘[T]hey’re killing people.’ Specifically, he stated ‘Look, the only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated, and that they’re killing people.’ Psaki stated the actions of censorship Facebook had already conducted were ‘clearly not sufficient.’
Four days later, on July 20, 2021, at a White House Press Conference, White House Communications Director Kate Bedingfield (‘Bedingfield’) stated that the White House would be announcing whether social-media platforms are legally liable for misinformation spread on their platforms and examining how misinformation fits into the liability protection granted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (which shields social-media platforms from being responsible for posts by third parties on their sites). Bedingfield further stated the administration was reviewing policies that could include amending the Communication Decency Act and that the social-media platforms ‘should be held accountable.’
Right now, the way the communications decency act works, the platforms are not liable for any expression by any users. For instance, if you are a Twitter user and you commit defamation, Twitter is not responsible for it. And that is absolutely crucial to the very existence of social media. If any of these platforms were responsible for each post each person made, they couldn’t function. They’d have to hold each and every post until they could independently fact check them. And the Biden administration made these threats over and over again:
At an April 25, 2022, White House press conference, after being asked to respond to news that Elon Musk may buy Twitter, Psaki again mentioned the threat to social-media companies to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, linking these threats to social-media platforms’ failure to censor misinformation and disinformation.1
…
At an Axios event entitled ‘A Conversation on Battling Misinformation,’ held on June 14, 2022, the White House National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy (‘McCarthy’) blamed social-media companies for allowing misinformation and disinformation about climate change to spread and explicitly tied these censorship demands with threats of adverse legislation regarding the Communications Decency Act.128
…
On June 16, 2022, the White House announced a new task force to target ‘general misinformation’ and disinformation campaigns targeted at women and LBGTQI individuals who are public and political figures, government and civic leaders, activists, and journalists. The June 16, 2022, Memorandum discussed the creation of a task force to reel in ‘online harassment and abuse’ and to develop programs targeting such disinformation campaigns. The Memorandum also called for the Task Force to confer with technology experts and again threatened social-media platforms with adverse legal consequences if the platforms did not censor aggressively enough.
…
[Surgeon General Vivek] Murthy called upon social-media platforms to operate with greater transparency and accountability, to monitor information more clearly, and to ‘consistently take action against misinformation super-spreaders on their platforms.’ Notably, [Eric] Waldo [Senior Advisor to the Surgeon General and former Chief Engagement Officer for the Surgeon General’s office] agreed in his deposition that the word ‘accountable’ carries with it the threat of consequences.
Even Congress got in on the action, at a time when Democrats had a majority in both houses, according to Assistant Special Agent in charge of the Cyber Branch for the San Francisco Division of the FBI, Elvis Chan (we swear this is an actual name, and it is kind of awesome):
Chan further thinks that pressure from Congress, specifically the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, resulted in more aggressive censorship policies. Chan also stated that congressional hearings placed pressure on the socialmedia platforms.
Chan further testified that Congressional staffers have had meetings with Facebook, Google/YouTube, and Twitter and have discussed potential legislation.
So, the court found that these constant threats created an atmosphere of coercion that meant that these ordinarily private companies were actually doing the bidding of the government. Therefore, it was as if the government did the censorship itself. Indeed, later when addressing the Plaintiff’s backup theory that these social media companies conspired with the government, the court cited the coercion as a defense: They were not conspiring together—the government was coercing them.
The court also accepted the parallel theory that the government had engaged in such ‘significant encouragement’ of the censorship that it was responsible for the censorship:
In evaluating ‘significant encouragement,’ a state may not induce, encourage, or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish. … Additionally, when the government has so involved itself in the private party’s conduct, it cannot claim the conduct occurred as a result of private choice, even if the private party would have acted independently. … Further, oral, or written statements made by public officials could give rise to a valid First Amendment claim where the comments of a governmental official can reasonably be interpreted as intimating that some form of punishment or adverse regulatory action will follow the failure to accede to the official’s request. … Additionally, a public official’s threat to stifle protected speech is actionable under the First Amendment and can be enjoined, even if the threat turns out to be empty.
(Citations ommitted.) Of particular note, when defendants denied that they were that closely tied to the social media companies, the court pointed out how often they had called each other ‘partners.’ Further, the court brought up the treatment of the Hunter Biden laptop:
The FBI’s failure to alert social-media companies that the Hunter Biden laptop story was real, and not mere Russian disinformation, is particularly troubling. The FBI had the laptop in their possession since December 2019 and had warned social-media companies to look out for a ‘hack and dump’ operation by the Russians prior to the 2020 election. Even after Facebook specifically asked whether the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation, Dehmlow of the FBI refused to comment, resulting in the social-media companies’ suppression of the story. As a result, millions of U.S. citizens did not hear the story prior to the November 3, 2020 election. Additionally, the FBI was included in Industry meetings and bilateral meetings, received and forwarded alleged misinformation to social-media companies, and actually mislead social-media companies in regard to the Hunter Biden laptop story. The Court finds this evidence demonstrative of significant encouragement by the FBI Defendants.
Thus the FBI’s behavior transformed the social media suppression into governmental action.
Finally, it is worth noting that two more familiar faces popped up when discussing specific people the government sought to silence. We already told you about Alex Berenson’s evidence that he was being suppressed by the government, and the post we wrote frankly aged really well.
More troubling still is the inclusion of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. That would be the man currently running to replace the current President as the nominee of the Democratic party. We consider Kennedy a long shot, but would he have been less of one if he wasn’t suppressed on social media? Is it possible that the Biden administration prevented a possible primary challenger from arising? The current president should not be able to prevent people from challenging him in the next election or ffprimary.
And this passage is chilling:
What is really telling is that virtually all of the free speech suppressed was ‘conservative’ free speech. Using the 2016 election and the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government apparently engaged in a massive effort to suppress disfavored conservative speech. The targeting of conservative speech indicates that Defendants may have engaged in ‘viewpoint discrimination,’ to which strict scrutiny applies.
When the government can suppress the opposition, we no longer have free and fair elections, and we are no longer a republic. We become something else.
So that is our view of the decision. Now let’s get some other inputs.
We suppose the victorious Attorney General of Missouri is a good place to start:
🚨BREAKING: The Court has granted our motion to BLOCK top officials in the federal government from violating the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans.
— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) July 4, 2023
What a way to celebrate Independence Day.
The preliminary injunction prohibits nearly all of the federal government, including DHS, DOJ, and HHS, from coercing and colluding with social media companies to censor free speech, amongst other things: pic.twitter.com/CixBjbT8LN
— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) July 4, 2023
Key officials of the White House, CDC, FBI, State Department, and other agencies are also blocked from participating in the federal government’s vast censorship enterprise. pic.twitter.com/2WpBjtbm6K
— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) July 4, 2023
Just as the judge hinted at in our first hearing in May, there is nothing stopping the feds from continuing to censor political speech without this injunction.
— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) July 4, 2023
The federal government cannot be trusted to protect Americans' rights, which is precisely why our Founders enshrined the First Amendment into the Constitution.
— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) July 4, 2023
Well, technically the courts are part of the federal government so in this case one part of the federal government is using the Constitution to stop the other part from violating the principles of free speech, but that’s just a nitpick. We get what he means.
My office is doing everything it can to protect Missourians' right to free speech from the largest First Amendment violation in American history.
— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) July 4, 2023
But we’re not done yet. We’re just getting started.
— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) July 4, 2023
Read more about the Court’s order granting our preliminary injunction here: https://t.co/YQewidqG9o
— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) July 4, 2023
This is, bar none, the most important news in the entire world today.
— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) July 4, 2023
Send your spirit energy & gratitude to @AGAndrewBailey, @AGJeffLandry, and their incredible legal teams for the most sweeping MASSIVE court victory for Internet freedom perhaps ever.
Fireworks indeed!! 🎇🎆 https://t.co/1z5S6UpWNC
For instance, yes, cocaine being found in the White House and even causing an evacuation is pretty big news, too, but this goes to whether or not America will remain a republic, so … yeah, that’s a much bigger deal.
Further, many of the people who worked to expose this kind of behavior with the #TwitterFiles were overjoyed:
Will have more soon, but this ruling is a rare moment for optimism, and hopefully a sign that the tide is turning on the Internet censorship issue. @shellenberger @rustyrockets @lhfang @bariweiss @thackerpd @davidzweig @robbysoave @ChrisLynnHedges @NAffects @Techno_Fog… https://t.co/M0bJ6qHCPD
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) July 4, 2023
This makes for an extra happy 4th!
— David Zweig (@davidzweig) July 5, 2023
We do not believe for a second that the opinion was released yesterday by coincidence (and we are fine with that).
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
— Lee Fang (@lhfang) July 5, 2023
🙌🙌🙌🙌🔥🔥🔥🔥👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼❤️❤️❤️❤️
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) July 4, 2023
Indeed, Shellenberger was posting marked up copies of the opinion and pretty much live Tweeting as he went over the decision:
And once again, the United States stands up for the First Amendment.
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) July 4, 2023
A huge victory in Missouri v. Biden — and on the Fourth of July!!!
Judge has ordered Biden officials to stop demanding censorship by social media companies.
Congrats @Eric_Schmitt !https://t.co/837yeVn9pV
"If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history."
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) July 4, 2023
!!!
And they are true. Terrifyingly, horrifyingly true.
The best reading I could have hoped for today… The First Amendment is a beacon of light in a darkening world pic.twitter.com/wysvVZ4p6K
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) July 4, 2023
This is disturbing... "a ruling that could curtail efforts to fight disinformation."
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) July 4, 2023
Let everyone see: @nytimes openly wants censorship.
This is not the same publication that it was not so long ago.
Shame.https://t.co/TgyvSi4vL2
Bravo to @akheriaty @DrJBhattacharya @MartinKulldorff and everyone else involved in this historic victory for free speech!
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) July 4, 2023
Consider reading the entire ruling.
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) July 4, 2023
It's a devastating indictment of US government censorship, and a frightening peek into how close we have come to totalitaranism.https://t.co/yHN4xf6nXP
Dear @nytimes and Democrats,
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) July 4, 2023
You somehow got yourself on the wrong side of the Constitution and history.
People don't want to be censored and spied upon.
You're nuts if you think spying and censorship would never be used against you.
Pull your heads out of your rear end. pic.twitter.com/W4SqbGvQu2
Where’s the @ACLU ?
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) July 4, 2023
Oh, right — justifying censorship demands as “jaw-boning”
Sure https://t.co/6WtQUxBLjA
To be fair, Mr. Jaffer says he is only formerly with the ACLU, but he is objectively wrong to say that the court didn’t try to grapple with the question. It cited case law and showed how the current facts matched with the prior rulings.
“PLEASE REMOVE!!!” demanded the government of information criticizing Fauci
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) July 4, 2023
Social media companies censored world-class experts urging “focused protection” instead of lockdowns
Despicable pic.twitter.com/UikpN5mu4b
The creeps at Stanford hate you and think they should be able to secretly censor you. They say they want to “get around unclear legal authorities…”
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) July 4, 2023
The First Amendment is quite clear, actually. pic.twitter.com/cv5Yamvx3I
This person, @CISAJen , must be fired ASAP.
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) July 4, 2023
She thinks she’s some kind of censorship superhero, saving the dumb masses from wrongthink.
Hard pass, Jen! You’re the villain in this story!
Consider resigning and apologizing. pic.twitter.com/aqwT0xKwel
The ruling is powerful and rests on the overwhelming evidence that government officials didn’t just ask, they demanded, threatened and coerced. And they did so along partisan and ideological lines. pic.twitter.com/0YTDXW7KBK
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) July 4, 2023
“The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits on their claim that the United States Government, through the White House and numerous federal agencies, pressured and encouraged social-media companies to suppress free speech.” pic.twitter.com/Q5MRHhCukk
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) July 4, 2023
The conclusion by Judge Kayla D. McClusky is worth quoting at length:
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) July 4, 2023
CONCLUSION
"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one place to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a… pic.twitter.com/Tm637hROix
And do we have to tell you that Alex Berenson was jubilant?
It’s Independence Day from censorship
— Alex Berenson (@AlexBerenson) July 4, 2023
ALT: “claim” pic.twitter.com/kOMluDwXIm
It's this simple:
— Alex Berenson (@AlexBerenson) July 4, 2023
"Each United States citizen has the right to decide for himself or herself what is true and what is false. The Government... does not have the right to determine the truth."
(Page 102-103)
INDEPENDENCE FROM CENSORSHIP DAYhttps://t.co/Ph31JdTosZ
GOTTA LOVE THIS JUDGE
— Alex Berenson (@AlexBerenson) July 4, 2023
"While not admitting any fault in the suppression of free speech, Defendants blame the Russians, COVID-19, and capitalism for any suppression of free speech by social-media companies..."
Dis information is true https://t.co/EApUhBHMpI
— Alex Berenson (@AlexBerenson) July 5, 2023
He seems to be making a pun, using ‘dis’ to be a substitute for ‘this.’
Yoel Roth is lucky we didn't get to depose him in Berenson v Twitter.
— Alex Berenson (@AlexBerenson) July 5, 2023
We'll see if he's as lucky in Berenson v Biden.
Nice to see him expressing knowledge here, though, it'll make it easier for us to get a third-party deposition. https://t.co/4xq54IhvYz
Mr. Roth does make an appearance in this opinion, but the focus was more on government actors.
US District Judge Terry Doughty knew EXACTLY what he was doing. His 155-page memo supporting the opinion is airtight. If @whitehouse is desperate enough to appeal, the Supreme Court will have an easy choice.
— Alex Berenson (@AlexBerenson) July 5, 2023
Releasing it July 4th is the icing on the cake.https://t.co/Ph31JdTosZ
We tend to agree.
Next up, we have Aaron Kheriaty, another plaintiff:
Boom. 🔥 This marks the beginning of the end of the federal censorship leviathan. https://t.co/2MxpedHexW
— Aaron Kheriaty, MD (@akheriaty) July 4, 2023
This is not a partisan issue. The judge granted our injunction,
— Aaron Kheriaty, MD (@akheriaty) July 5, 2023
because what the government has been doing clearly violates the highest law of the land, namely, the United States Constitution. It’s not a left/right issue. It’s a legal/illegal issue. The government’s behavior has… https://t.co/P0GF47UaPQ
Sadly, we are not convinced it is a non-partisan issue. But we wish it was.
This is an important step on a long road to the Supreme Court. I know in my bones we are going to win this one: the evidence in our favor is simply overwhelming. https://t.co/BerZ7lMcjC
— Aaron Kheriaty, MD (@akheriaty) July 5, 2023
This Quote-Tweets another plaintiff:
Amen to that, my friend (and co-plaintiff in this case). The founders built even better than they knew. https://t.co/maAiInA6zR
— Aaron Kheriaty, MD (@akheriaty) July 5, 2023
Media companies be like, “what we gonna do now that the government can’t tell us what to print?”
— Aaron Kheriaty, MD (@akheriaty) July 5, 2023
The United States Constitution is something of a miracle. But unless we defend it, it’s just a piece of paper. Happy Independence Day, my friends.
— Aaron Kheriaty, MD (@akheriaty) July 5, 2023
Returning to co-plaintiff Dr. Jay Bhattacharya:
The @nytimes has its Missouri v. Biden story exactly backwards. The Biden administration used its censorship apparatus to protect it from outside criticism of the covid misinformation it spread. See my March 2023 congressional testimony for details. https://t.co/qZI5hNZk0U
— Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya) July 5, 2023
And let’s take a moment to hear from others:
The federal government “seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth.’”
— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) July 4, 2023
— Judge Doughty in Missouri v Biden ruling
"If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history."
— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) July 4, 2023
— Judge Doughty in Missouri v Biden ruling
This is undeniably the case, and social media has been an enforcement arm of the government for years. Twitter is now a rare and refreshing exception, which is why they want it to die. https://t.co/6ss2DdklMn
— Seth Dillon (@SethDillon) July 4, 2023
Judge Doughty protecting the First Amendment on Independence Day. https://t.co/gEjtBdMevX
— Carmine Sabia (@CarmineSabia) July 4, 2023
Brought tears to my eyes. 🇺🇸❤️ pic.twitter.com/4FNgYwMsIe
— Katie Scarlett (@Katiescarlet2) July 4, 2023
HAPPY 4th of JULY! And LOOK here!
— Justin Hart (@justin_hart) July 4, 2023
A judge just ruled the government can...
1) NO LONGER CENSOR YOU
2) NO LONGER FLAG YOUR POSTS
3) NO LONGER DICTATE SOCIAL MEDIA POLICIES
4) NO LONGER COMMUNICATE WITH THESE COMPANIES TO CENSOR YOU
5) NO LONGER WORK WITH THE EIP, the virality… pic.twitter.com/cnCTnou7JP
Of course, the AP is there to try to make this story sound like less than it is:
A federal judge is limiting the Biden administration's discussions with social media companies as part of a lawsuit alleging the U.S. overstepped in its efforts to persuade companies to address postings on vaccines and elections. https://t.co/UB1L8Bt8RD
— The Associated Press (@AP) July 4, 2023
The judge found the Biden administration engaged in probable coercion of social media companies to censor speech protected under the First Amendment and to censor the administration’s political opponents. That’s a bit more than just overstepping their bounds.
Finally, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is just happy to be mentioned:
Federal judge orders President Biden to stop censoring his critics including me. The decision mentions me on page 17. Happy Independence Day Everyone!https://t.co/nEE40XSjpC
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) July 4, 2023
What a weirdly tepid response. We would have expected a fist bump, at least. But you do you, Mr. Kennedy.
***
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy's conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member