Huge Update on MO v Biden!!
Incredible timing for a ruling coming out of the Western District of Louisiana yesterday, July 4th, when Judge Terry Doughty granted the preliminary injunction requested in the censorship lawsuit against federal agencies, Missouri v Biden. Many speculate, and I would have to agree, that as the country celebrated Independence Day, Judge Doughty was sending a message that the federal government has clearly overstepped its bounds. Doughty notes in his opinion:
“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.’”
Louisiana is suing the Biden administration along with Missouri in this landmark case. Many thanks to AG Jeff Landry and Solicitor General Liz Murrill for their efforts to rein in the federal government and its broad sweeping web of censorship involving almost every federal agency. Plaintiffs in the case, Drs. Jay Bhattacharya, Aaron Kheriarty, Martin Kulldorff, Jim Hoft, and myself (Jill Hines) were granted the injunction against a host of federal agencies and actors that include (the full list can be found HERE):
The DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (“HHS”) and THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES (“NIAID”), the CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (“CDC”), the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (“FBI”), THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, along with their secretary, director, administrators, and employees; the following members of the Executive Office of the President of the United States: White House Press Secretary KARINE JEAN-PIERRE, the CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AGENCY (“CISA”), and specifically the following employees: JEN EASTERLY, Director of CISA; the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (“DHS”), the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE (“State Department”)….
Some highlights from the 155 page opinion and seven page ruling were noted in a tweet by ICAN attorney, Aaron Siri of Siri and Glimstad:
"If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history."
"The principal function of free speech under the United States’ system of government is to invite dispute; it may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger."
"Freedom of speech and press is the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom."
"'For if men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments ... reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.' George Washington"
"'Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the free acts of speech.' Benjamin Franklin"
"'I may disapprove of what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it.' Evelyn Beatrice Hill"
"The White House Defendants made it very clear to social-media companies what they wanted suppressed and what they wanted amplified. Faced with unrelenting pressure from the most powerful office in the world, the social-media companies apparently complied."
"Like the White House Defendants and Surgeon General Defendants, the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment free speech claim against the CDC Defendants. ... The CDC became the 'determiner of truth' for social-media platforms, deciding whether COVID-19 statements made on social media were true or false. ... If the CDC said a statement on social media was false, it was suppressed, in spite of alternative views."
"Plaintiffs have shown that not only have the Defendants shown willingness to coerce and/or to give significant encouragement to social-media platforms to suppress free speech with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic and national elections, they have also shown a willingness to do it with regard to other issues, such as gas prices, parody speech, calling the President a liar, climate change, gender, and abortion."
"'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 source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.' Harry S. Truman"
"The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition. Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed. It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature. 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."
The Biden Administraiton is "HEREBY ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from taking the following actions as to social-media companies: (1) 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; (2) 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; (3) urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner social-media companies to change their guidelines for removing, deleting, suppressing, or reducing content containing protected free speech ..."
My former attorney with New Civil Liberties Alliance, Jenin Younes, tweeted:
Younes now works for Congressman Jim Jordan and the Weaponization of Government Committee, which also recently issued a report on government collusion with Big Tech, and government-funded third parties to censor Americans’ speech:
In a separate lawsuit, Hines v Stamos, I am suing some of the government-funded third parties mentioned in the above tweet, including Stanford Internet Observatory, Graphika, and Atlantic Council, with the help of America First Legal. Read more about this lawsuit HERE.
As both of these cases proceed, I will endeavor to keep you updated, but a great source of information is Tracy Beanz, whom I had the pleasure of meeting at the May 26th hearing in Monroe, LA. Beanz recently became a contributor on The Highwire with Del Bigtree. Mike Benz, who used to work in the government cyber program, is another fantastic resource.
Awesome🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻
Praise the Lord! God bless Judge Terry Doughty.
Appreciate the Beanz and Benz recommendations.
Thank you Braving Freedom, God bless you also.