Free Speech Lawsuit: Charlie Kirk vs. Biden’s Censorship – ACLJ to Represent (Video)

Report from the constitutional law firm ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice): ACLJ Representing Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA Against Biden Administration in Major Corruption Lawsuit (August 31, 2023)

Summary video: The Charlie Kirk Lawsuit – ACLJ to Represent

Full podcast: Major Corruption Lawsuit: ACLJ Representing Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA Other video link: ACLJ on Rumble

Video description: The ACLJ now represents famous conservative commentator Charlie Kirk and his youth-oriented, grassroots organization Turning Point USA. We plan to file a massive federal lawsuit against the federal government on behalf of Kirk and others who have been censored online. Before the 2020 election, Kirk had millions of followers on social media. But after President Biden’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) began suppressing conservative social media accounts, Kirk lost hundreds of thousands of followers. Such Deep State interference violated Kirk’s First Amendment right to free speech. When did this unlawful censorship begin? After the media promoted rampant claims that Russia had stolen the 2016 election, the Obama Administration shifted its focus to foreign election threats. When the Mueller Report found zero evidence of Russian collusion between President Donald Trump and Russia, the CISA broadened its scope of foreign threats to “domestic misinformation.” Following this, it began clamping down on online information that it considered dangerous. Eventually, the DHS equated “online misinformation” to committing a cyberattack to interfere with any election. Then the DHS and CISA pressured social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to censor conservative messages. Such message-throttling is a gross violation of the First Amendment, and the government has put its thumb on the scale of censorship. We already filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Biden Administration after the FBI pressured Facebook to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 election. When Kirk contacted us, we agreed to file a massive federal lawsuit against the Deep State to stop the suppression of conservatives on social media and for damages for Kirk and Turning Point USA resulting from the suppression and shadow-banning. Kirk first began noticing that his message wasn’t reaching his followers during the 2020 presidential election. At the time, they had one of the largest conservative Twitter accounts in social media, with more than 120–140k retweets a day, but then it started to taper off during the election cycle. And then after January 6, he truly felt his social media freefall after being put on a “do not amplify” list: This language started to get introduced, and obviously, a new regime took the Oval Office, where they considered my views and the views of half the country – and more than half the country, in my opinion – to be that of domestic violent extremism. And if you look at the DHS documents that have been made public and you look at the Twitter files, I was put on a “do not amplify list” on Twitter. That’s a fact . . . . The federal government labeled my account and Turning Point USA – and many others – for censorship. And the federal government is not allowed to shut up the citizen. Turning Point USA wasn’t the only conservative organization targeted. Other victims of this government suppression include the Heritage Foundation, the Christian Broadcasting Network, Fox News, and many more. Conservatives used to have a voice in the marketplace of ideas, but then the government squelched their opposing viewpoints. The government tipping the scale in free speech is illegal, un-American, and a betrayal of everything America stands for. Kirk also detailed how he was locked out of his Twitter account during the week of the election because he tweeted about the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. Twitter deemed Kirk’s message to be Russian disinformation. Aside from Kirk’s voice being suppressed, how many other conservative Americans were silenced online? And how many Americans just gave up using social media for fear of legal repercussions or having their opinions censored? We already have 16 cases against the Biden Administration, and we plan on filing the new federal lawsuit against the Deep State any day now. We must not allow the federal government to continue censoring conservatives. Future presidential elections and the constitutional republic depend on preserving the First Amendment. Our new case reflects why we launched our month-long Life & Liberty Drive. It’s been a great success so far, but we are still short of our goal. Midnight tonight is the deadline to have your donation doubled instantly. Donate today to defend life and liberty – including our newest federal case on behalf of Charlie Kirk against the Deep State. RELATED The ACLJ also posted they have “filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Biden Administration after the FBI pressured Facebook to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 election.” See ACLJ v. FBI: FBI Election Interference About the ACLJ: Founded in 1990 with the mandate to protect religious and constitutional freedoms, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) engages legal, legislative, and cultural issues by implementing an effective strategy of advocacy, education, and litigation that includes representing clients before the Supreme Court of the United States and international tribunals around the globe. As ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow continued to build his legal and legislative team, the ACLJ experienced tremendous success in litigating cases at all levels of the judiciary – from the federal district court level to the Supreme Court of the United States. Over the last three decades, Sekulow has appeared before the Supreme Court of the United States on numerous occasions, successfully arguing precedent-setting cases before the high Court: Protecting the free speech rights of pro-life demonstrators, and safeguarding the constitutional rights of religious groups to have equal access to public facilities.

This post might be updated later on.

Facebook Files #1-#4: Biden Censorship on Americans (Index)

Facebook emails show how the Biden White House pressured Facebook/Meta to censor Americans. The emails were obtained by the House Judiciary Committee led by chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who has been releasing them in Twitter/X threads titled ‘Facebook Files.’ So far, Facebook Files #1 through #4 have been released.

THE FACEBOOK FILES – Part 1: Click tweet below to see the entire thread. THE FACEBOOK FILES, PART 1: SMOKING-GUN DOCS PROVE FACEBOOK CENSORED AMERICANS BECAUSE OF BIDEN WHITE HOUSE PRESSURE 🧵 Thread: — Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) July 27, 2023 . FACEBOOK FILES – PART #2 Click tweet below to see the entire thread. THE FACEBOOK FILES PART 2. Newly subpoenaed documents reveal Facebook bowed to the Biden White House’s pressure to remove posts. 🧵 Thread: https://t.co/vOgRkBNFmW — Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) July 28, 2023 . FACEBOOK FILES – PART #3 Click tweet below to see the entire thread. THE FACEBOOK FILES PART 3. Newly subpoenaed internal notes of meetings between Facebook executives and Biden Admin officials reveal more about the lengths the Biden White House wanted to go to control true speech on Facebook. 🧵 Thread: https://t.co/AeXrs1U8wr — Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) August 3, 2023 . FACEBOOK FILES – PART #4 Click tweet below to see the entire thread. THE FACEBOOK FILES PART 4. FBI LIED ABOUT MEETING WITH BIG TECH REGARDING NY POST’S HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP STORY Internal FB docs reveal that an FBI Special Agent made false statements in testimony about the FBI’s role in the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story 🧵 Thread: — Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) August 7, 2023 .

REPORTS About Facebook Files – Part #1 – 7/27/2023: Jim Jordan Obtains Facebook Files Showing White House Pressure to Censor Americans – 7/28/2023: WSJ: Facebook ‘Demoted’ Video of Tucker Carlson by 50% at the Demand of Biden White House About Facebook Files – Part #2 – 7/28/2023: Biden Pressured Company to Remove Humorous Vaccine Posts, Info About Side Effects About Facebook Files – Part #3 – 8/03/2023: Biden White House Wanted Facebook to ‘Change the Algorithm,’ Boost New York Times Content over Right-Wing Media Biden White House digital strategy director Rob Flaherty can be seen suggesting Facebook change its algorithm to promote corporate establishment media including The New York Times over [conservatives]. … [Bob Flaherty is also mentioned in the court case Missouri v. Biden], showing Flaherty pressuring Facebook to spy on and censor users on WhatsApp, a supposedly encrypted private messaging platform. About Facebook Files – Part #4 – 8/07/2023: Facebook Files: FBI Lied About Extensive Meetings with Zuckerberg’s Platform About Hunter Biden ‘Laptop from Hell’

RELATED – 7/21/2023: Jordan: FBI Told Twitter Hunter Laptop Was Real Day Story Came Out, then Wouldn’t Tell Facebook

This post might be updated later on.

CENSORSHIP = Facebook Files + Biden White House

Congressman Jim Jordan Releases THE FACEBOOK FILES: How Biden White House Censured Americans ● THE FACEBOOK FILES, Part 1: THE FACEBOOK FILES, PART 1: Smoking-gun docs prove Facebook censored Americans because of Biden White House pressure THE FACEBOOK FILES, PART 1: SMOKING-GUN DOCS PROVE FACEBOOK CENSORED AMERICANS BECAUSE OF BIDEN WHITE HOUSE PRESSURE 🧵 Thread: — Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) July 27, 2023 Video: pic.twitter.com/QAHVfsQv0i — Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) July 27, 2023 ● THE FACEBOOK FILES, Part 2: THE FACEBOOK FILES, PART 2: Newly subpoenaed documents reveal Facebook bowed to the Biden White House’s pressure to remove posts. Thread: THE FACEBOOK FILES PART 2. Newly subpoenaed documents reveal Facebook bowed to the Biden White House’s pressure to remove posts. 🧵 Thread: https://t.co/vOgRkBNFmW — Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) July 28, 2023

RELATED – INDEX: THE TWITTER FILES (Govt. Used Big Tech to Censor Us)

Hearing: Government Censorship & Collusion with Big Tech (7/20/2023)

Today’s Hearing on the Weaponization of the Federal Government: Censorship By: The Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government Purpose: House Judiciary explains: The hearing will examine the federal government’s role in censoring Americans, the Missouri v. Biden case, and Big Tech’s collusion with out-of-control government agencies to silence speech. WITNESSES: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., attorney Emma-Jo Morris, journalist at Breitbart News D. John Sauer, Special Assistant Attorney General, Louisiana Department of Justice RELATED – The Missouri v. Biden case – Big Tech’s collusion (The Twitter Files) – House Hearing on Censorship by Biden Administration (March 30, 2023) – House Hearing on Twitter Files (Govt. Used Twitter to Censor Americans)

Video via House Judiciary: Video via RSBN:

This post might be updated later on.

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.

VIDEO: House Hearing on Censorship by Biden Administration (March 30, 2023)

Today’s Hearing on the Weaponization of the Federal Government: Biden Administration’s Censorship By: Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government Topic: House Judiciary explains: The hearing will examine the Missouri v. Biden [lawsuit] challenging the [Biden] administration’s violation of the First Amendment by directing social media companies to censor and suppress Americans’ free speech.” The committee is looking into how the Biden administration violated First Amendment rights by using Big Tech to suppress free speech and censor public opinion. Missouri and Louisiana filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration. Today, the subcommittee heard evidence obtained from that lawsuit. CENSORHIP: Anthony Fauci: – COVID-19 lab leak – Mask efficacy – Vaccine efficacy – Censoring COVID-19 posts Biden Inc.: – Hunter Biden laptop story – Censoring Hunter Biden posts Video via House Judicary GOP / YouTube Other video link: C-SPAN | Fox News/ YouTube Testifying: – U.S. Senator Eric Schmitt, Missouri – testimony – Attorney General Jeff Landry, Louisiana – testimony – D. John Sauer, Special Assistant Attorney General, Louisiana Department of Justice – testimony – Matthew Seligman, Professor, Stanford Constitutional Law Center – testimony pic.twitter.com/XPUdyp3qie — Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) March 30, 2023 Current and former lawmakers don’t need to stay for questions: Jordan’s office said the Judiciary Committee often allows current and former lawmakers to present opening statements without staying for questions. “It has been a long practice of the Committee to allow current and former Members of Congress to present an opening statement without taking questions,” said Russell Dye, communications director for Jordan and counsel for the House Judiciary Committee. “Democrats did the same exact thing when they were in the majority. Furthermore, Democrats recently asked Rep. Jamie Raskin to provide an opening statement to the Committee without taking questions as well. Democrats know all of this, of course, but sadly decided to put on a partisan charade instead of act like adults.”