TAKEAWAYS: Judge Finds Biden Admin. Violated Americans’ Freedom of Speech (First Amendment)

REPORT: Judge Bars Biden Administration From Colluding With Big Tech To Censor Free Speech (July 5, 2023): [Highlights added] A federal judge in Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction that bars the Biden regime from colluding with Big Tech to censor Americans exercising their First Amendment rights. “If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” Judge Terry Doughty, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, noted in the ruling. “In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech.” … The Biden White House has a history of bragging about leveraging relationships with Big Tech companies to suppress information the administration deems “problematic.” U.S. Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO), who started the case, tweeted yesterday: 🚨BREAKING: A Federal Judge in Missouri v. Biden just granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the FBI, DOJ, DHS & other agencies from working with Big Tech to censor on social media Big win for the First Amendment on this Independence Day🇺🇸 I’m proud to have led the fight. pic.twitter.com/59FzDVuI4f — Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) July 4, 2023 .

READ THE COURT DOCUMENTS PDF (7 pages): Judgment PDF (155 pages): Judge’s Preliminary Injunction (Other link.) Case Number: 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KD Case Title: State of Missouri et. al. v. Joseph R. Biden et. al. Judge memorandum ruling on request for Preliminary Injunction

Key Takeaways of the Judge’s Preliminary Injunction Page 2: “I may disapprove of what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it. Evelyn Beatrice Hill, 1906, The Friends of Voltaire” Page 2: “This case is about the Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Page 2: “If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history. In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech.” Page 2: “Although the censorship alleged in this case almost exclusively targeted conservative speech, the issues raised herein go beyond party lines. The right to free speech is not a member of any political party and does not hold any political ideology.” Page 4: FACTUAL BACKGROUND “In this case, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants suppressed conservative-leaning free speech, such as: (1) suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the 2020 Presidential election; (2) suppressing speech about the lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origin; (3) suppressing speech about the efficiency of masks and COVID-19 lockdowns: (4) suppressing speech about the efficiency of COVID-19 vaccines; (5) suppressing speech about election integrity in the 2020 presidential election; (6) suppressing speech about the security of voting by mail; (7) suppressing parody ‘content about Defendants; (8) suppressing negative posts about the economy: and (9) suppressing negative posts about President Biden.” Page 88: “Viewpoint discrimination is an especially egregious form of content discrimination. The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction.” Page 89: “The Court, after examining the facts, has determined that some of the Defendants either exercised coercive power or provided significant encouragement, which resulted in the possible suppression of Plaintiffs’ speech.” Page 119: “[I]t was not the public statements that were the problem. It was the alleged use of government agencies and employees to coerce and/or significantly encourage social-media platforms to suppress free speech on those platforms. Plaintiffs point specifically to the various meetings, emails, follow-up contacts, and the threat of amending Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act. Plaintiffs have produced evidence that Defendants did not just use public statements to coerce and/or encourage social-media platforms to suppress free speech, but rather used meetings, emails, phone calls, follow-up meetings, and the power of the government to pressure social-media platforms to change their policies and to suppress free speech.” Page 119: “Content was seemingly suppressed even if it did not violate social-media policies. It is alleged coercion and/or significant encouragement that likely violates the Free Speech Clause, not government speech, and thus, the Court is not persuaded by Defendants’ arguments here.” Page 154: “This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech. American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country.” Page 154: “Although this case is still relatively young, and at this stage the Court is only examining it in terms of Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, the evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth.”721 Footnote 721: “An “Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’” refers to the concept presented in George Orwell’s dystopian novel, ‘1984.’ In the novel, the Ministry of Truth is a governmental institution responsible for altering historical records and disseminating propaganda to manipulate and control public perception.”

Coercion examples from Biden officials to social media companies: Page 9, item (1): “On January 23, 2021, three days after president Biden took office, Clarke Humphrey (“Humphrey”), who at the time was the Digital Director for the COVID-19 Response Team, emailed Twitter and requested the removal of an anti-COVID-19 vaccine tweet by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr…The email read, “Hey folks – Wanted to flag the below tweet and am wondering if we can get moving on the process of having it removed ASAP.” Page 9, item (2): “On February 6, 2021, [Rob] Flaherty requested Twitter to remove a parody account …The request stated, ”Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately,” and “Please remove this account immediately.”” [Flaherty was Biden’s Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Digital Strategy.] Page 12, item (8): “Meta [Facebook] also stated, “We think there is considerably more we can do in ‘partnership’ with you and your team to drive behavior.” Page 13, item (10): “On March 15, 2021, Flaherty… [sent an email] 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.” Page 15: “Flaherty seemingly spoke on behalf of the White House and stated that the White House was hoping they (presumably the White House and Facebook) could be “partners here, even if it hasn’t worked so far.”53 A meeting was scheduled the following Wednesday between Facebook and White House officials to discuss these issues.”

NAMES IN THE LAWSUIT PLAINTIFFS: the State of Missouri, the State of Louisiana, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Jim Hoft [from The Gateway Pundit], Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya, and Jill Hines

DEFENDANTS: president Joseph R Biden, Jr., Karine Jean- Pierre, Vivek H Murthy, Xavier Becerra, Dept of Health & Human Services (HHS), Dr. Hugh Auchincloss, National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), Alejandro Mayorkas, Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS), Jen Easterly, Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Carol Crawford, United States Census Bureau, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Robert Silvers, Samantha Vinograd, Ali Zaidi, Rob Flaherty, Dori Salido , Stuart F. Delery, Aisha Shah, Sarah Beran, Mina Hsiang, U.S. Dept. of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Laura Dehmlow, Elvis M. Chan, Jay Dempsey, Kate Galatas, Katharine Dealy, Yolanda Byrd, Christy Choi, Ashley Morse, Joshua Peck, Kym Wyman, Lauren Protentis, Geoffrey Hale, Allison Snell, Brian Scully, Jennifer Shopkom, U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA), Erica Jefferson, Michacl Murray, Brad Kimberly, U.S. Dept of State, Leah Bray, Alexis Frisbie, Daniel Kimmage, U.S. Dept of Treasury, Wally Adeyemo, U. S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), Steven Frid, and Kristen Muthig.

REACTIONS Note: This is preliminary injunction — not a final ruling. The Biden administration will most likely appeal it. It could go up to the Supreme Court. But it is nice to see a judge doing his job. – Attoney General Bailey: Happy birthday America. You get your First Amendment back!!!🇺🇸 — Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) July 4, 2023 – U.S. Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) talked to Charlie Kirk today: – The Gateway Pundit is one of the plaintiffs in the Missouri v. Biden case. – Jim Hoft from The Gateway Pundit reacted:: BREAKING: Independence Day Victory for Free Speech – Trump-Appointed Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction Prohibiting DHS, FBI, DOJ, and Other Agencies from Colluding with Big Tech to Censor Americans in MO v. Biden Case – with Gateway Pundit as Lead Plaintiff!

THIS CASE IS RELATED TO THE ‘TWITTER FILES’ INDEX: THE TWITTER FILES (Govt. Used Big Tech to Censor Us) UPDATE Federal Judge Who Awarded Big Free Speech Win In Missouri v. Biden Denies Biden Regime’s Motion To Stay Read his 13-page ruling: here.