According to the White House, it needs to squash the First Amendment rights of its opposition.
It is as though, before the internet, the government had demanded that Bell Telephone Co. disconnect Ralph Nader’s phone line, pressured the New York Times to block publication of the Pentagon Papers, or leveraged Warner Bros. to pull All the President’s Men from theaters.
https://spectator.org/biden-administration-is-irreparably-harmed-by-free-speech-injunction/
“The Government faces irreparable harm with each day the injunction remains in effect,” contends a July 6 motion from the Biden administration in response to federal Judge Terry Doughty’s preliminary injunction in Missouri v. Biden. Government lawyers argued that it may “prevent the Government from engaging in a vast range of lawful and responsible conduct,” and therefore, a stay of the injunction “is in the public interest.”
It isn’t. In reality, the people have suffered harm from government conduct against their basic rights and freedoms.
Issued on July 4, Doughty’s preliminary injunction stated that “‘Protected free speech’ means speech that is protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution in accordance with jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal and District Courts.” (RELATED: Flahertyism: Orwellian Censorship by Biden Proxy Rob Flaherty)
Doughty named Department of Health and Human Services boss Xavier Becerra, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the FBI, DOJ, the State Department, and many others, including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).
These agencies, including specific employees, “are hereby enjoined and restrained” from “meeting with social-media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms.”
The agencies and employees, acting in their official capacity, are also enjoined from “specifically flagging content or posts on social media platforms and/or forwarding such to social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”
It is as though, before the internet, the government had demanded that Bell Telephone Co. disconnect Ralph Nader’s phone line, pressured the New York Times to block publication of the Pentagon Papers, or leveraged Warner Bros. to pull All the President’s Men from theaters. In recent years, the government has been ramping up this brand of censorship.
The plaintiffs include epidemiologists Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, authors of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD), which opposed draconian COVID lockdowns. Instead of debating these medical scientists, Dr. Anthony Fauci of NIAID and National Institutes of Health boss Francis Collins teamed up for “a quick and devastating published takedown” of the declaration. Shortly after its publication in October 2020, the declaration was “censored on social media by Google, Facebook, Twitter, and others.”
According to Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, “When Fauci speaks, big tech censors and that’s what this lawsuit’s all about.” However, public health matters were not the government’s only target. (READ MORE: Five Quick Things: The Biden Bribes Scandal Gets Deeper and Wider)
In 2018, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified to the Senate that Facebook had collaborated with Robert Mueller’s investigation of Donald Trump, but the CEO provided no details. Zuckerberg did reveal that Facebook had removed a page from the site at the government’s demand. Zuckerberg did not indicate the content of the page, which government agency or official had demanded its removal, and when the removal had taken place.
Be seeing you
MCViewPoint 