Biden Loses Again

[GURPS]

‘Shocking, Appalling, and Concerning’​

Specifically, the agencies and their staff members are prohibited from meeting or contacting by phone, email, or text message or “engaging in any communication of any kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech,” per the injunction.

The agencies are also barred from flagging content on posts on social media platforms and forwarding them to the companies with requests for action such as removing or otherwise suppressing their reach.

Encouraging or otherwise egging on social media companies to change their guidelines for the removal, suppression, or reduction of content that contains protected free speech by the government also isn’t allowed.

‘All Were Suppressed’​

The judge wrote in an accompanying memorandum that 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,” Doughty wrote.

Landry gave examples of censorship-by-proxy at the hands of the Biden administration, including email chains between high-ranking White House officials and social media platforms targeting specific individuals, such as presidential hopeful Robert Kennedy Jr. and media personality Tucker Carlson, “directly targeting them and asking those social media platforms to take their content down.”

“There are a number of things that as we uncovered information in the discovery process of this case, that was shocking to us, all of that was presented to this judge,” Landry said. “And that’s what I think was compelling him to eventually do what he did today, which is to order and give us the injunction.”

Judge Delivers Major Blow to Biden Admin in Social Media Censorship Case

www.theepochtimes.com

 

[GURPS]

Federal Judge Blocks Biden Officials From Contacting Social Media Companies: Report​

The lawsuit, filed by Missouri and Louisiana, accused the Biden administration of pushing social media companies to censor content related to the coronavirus pandemic.

The states said in the lawsuit that the Biden administration’s actions were “the most egregious violations of the First Amendment in the history of the United States of America.”

The judge, a Trump nominee, did allow for some exceptions for Biden officials to have contact with social media companies, including informing them of posts involving “criminal activity or criminal conspiracies,” “national security threats, extortion, or other threats,” and crimes related to U.S. elections.

 

[GURPS]

Biden Admin Can’t Coordinate With Social Media To Suppress Speech, Federal Judge Rules​

A federal judge issued an injunction Tuesday ruling that the Biden administration likely violated the First Amendment when it worked with social media companies to censor opposing views.

Calling the censorship “Orwellian,” Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, stated that Republican attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri “have produced evidence of a massive effort by Defendants, from the White House to federal agencies, to suppress speech based on its content,” the Washington Post reported.

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

But yesterday, the government’s gravy train derailed in Louisiana, spilling hazardous “misinformation” all over the tracks.

After spending a year wisely developing the evidence, the States’ attorneys had moved for an injunction against the government’s censorship machine. Litigation ensued, and yesterday the judge entered its remarkable order granting the injunction and forbidding the government from working with social media companies except in three limited cases (national security, criminal matters and deliberate elections interference).
In his 155-page opinion, the judge wrote that the State attorneys general had “produced evidence of a massive effort by Defendants, from the White House to federal agencies, to suppress speech based on its content.”

Effective immediately, the government and social media companies may no longer enforce information litmus tests on anything other than those limited areas, such as in the case of scientific orthodoxy. They can no longer be official arbiters of what is deemed “information” or “disinformation” related to, say, a pandemic virus. The order also forbids the government from working with so-called “academic groups” that have been colluding with federal officials to suppress conservative speech.

So, of course The Washington Post thinks it’s the worst thing ever. It quoted cherry-picked Stanford Law School assistant professor, Evelyn Douek, who darkly warned, “The injunction is strikingly broad and clearly intended to chill any kind of contact between government actors and social media platforms.”

Silly professor. The Constitution forbids the GOVERNMENT from chilling CITIZEN’S speech, not the other way around. Read it again.

There’s obviously a lot in the 155-page order, and to be honest I haven’t finished reading it yet. I can’t imagine how long it took the judge to write this book-length judgement. But it was clear from the get-go, from the other Supreme Court cases he cited, that the judge was not impressed with the government’s argument they are protecting the public from the bad ideas of stay-at-home moms and school board critics:

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. Texas v. Johnson, 109 S. Ct. 2533, 2542–43 (1989). Freedom of speech and press is the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom. Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts, 87 S. Ct. 1975, 1986 (1967).

This is an only preliminary injunction, and will end when the case ends. But it’s still important. In order to grant an injunction, the Court must find that the plaintiffs are substantially likely to win the case. So in that sense, the Court is strongly hinting that, based on what he’s seen so far, he is likely to find that the Biden Administration violated Americans’ First Amendment guarantees.

Men…think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

— Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841).

☕️ LONG VAX ☙ Wednesday, July 5, 2023 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Bonus roundup: White House's cocaine problem; major pro-freedom decision; link between jabs and relentlessly debilitating syndromes; great news on summer movies, and more.

www.coffeeandcovid.com

 

[Clem72]

I'm not sure why they bother with a ruling at all. They knew it was wrong when they did it, there's no reason to expect they would be "found out" for doing it again, they won't be punished for doing it, and there isn't even a mechanism for that punishment.

 

[GURPS]

“Ministry of Truth:” More on the Biden Administration’s censorship struck down in Missouri v. Biden​

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:

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

I'm not sure why they bother with a ruling at all. They knew it was wrong when they did it, there's no reason to expect they would be "found out" for doing it again, they won't be punished for doing it, and there isn't even a mechanism for that punishment.

Shame this took a lawsuit to expose for those us who could read the tea leaves and knew exactly what was going on

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

The suit alleges a massive coordinated effort by the Deep State (permanent administrative state) to work with Big Tech to censor and manipulate Americans – from average citizens to news outlets – on issues including the Hunter Biden Laptop from Hell, 2020 Election Integrity, COVID-19 origin and extent skepticism, COVID-19 vaccine skepticism, among other issues.

In June 2022, The Gateway Pundit began assisting Missouri AG Schmitt’s team and providing critical evidence of Facebook and Twitter censorship of the Gateway Pundit on all of these issues. (Read more here.)

The case reached a CRUCIAL turning point in July when AG Schmitt and his team won a huge victory. They persuaded the federal judge to grant them limited discovery (investigatory powers) BEFORE the Court. (Read more here.)

This allowed AG Schmitt to compel the GOVERNMENT AND FACEBOOK AND TWITTER, and a few other social media platforms to turn over documents and communications exchanged between the government and the social media platforms, in which censorship was discussed.

In August 2022, we reported that TGP’s Jim Hoft himself became the lead non-governmental plaintiff in the lawsuit against the government. (Read more here.)

Since then, AG Schmitt’s team has been engaged in a slug-fest with the government and Big Tech to turn over the demanded documents.

Neither the government nor Big Tech wants to disclose the damning evidence against them and they’ve fought like hell to stop the disclosure.

Since that time, numerous government officials including Dr. Tony Fauci have been deposed and testified in the case.

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

Monumental Independence Day Verdict!

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[GURPS]

Judge Bars Biden Press Secretary From Flagging Posts For Big Tech To Censor, Two Years After Admin Bragged About It​

Two years ago, Biden’s then-Press Secretary Jen Psaki bragged about the administration’s relationship with major platforms. She told reporters the Biden administration was often “flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.”

“We are in regular touch with these social media platforms and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team,” Psaki said from the White House podium, and later doubled down on the corporate-government collusion.

Psaki’s immediate successor, Jean-Pierre, added in November that the White House was keeping a “close eye” on “misinformation” on Twitter.


“We have always been very clear that when it comes to social media platforms it is their responsibility to make sure that when it comes to misinformation, when it comes to the hate that we’re seeing, that they take action, that they continue to take action,” Jean-Pierre said. “Again, we’re all keeping a close eye on this.”

 

[GURPS]

he State Department canceled its future meetings with Facebook just one day after US District Court Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump appointee who still honors the US Constitution, accused the Biden Regime of violating the First Amendment by censoring unfavorable views in a blistering 155-page opinion.

A Trump-appointed federal judge on Tuesday issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting DHS, FBI, DOJ, and other agencies from its government-wide, fascist conspiracy with Big Tech to censor speech and manipulate the public.


The Gateway Pundit is proudly the lead plaintiff in the MO v. Biden case!

The federal government censored online stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop, Covid origins lab-leak theory, Covid vaccines, lockdowns and facemasks, 2020 election fraud and more!

The judge called the Biden Regime’s efforts “Orwellian.”

“This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech,” Judge Doughty wrote. “American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country … the evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario.”

One day later Biden’s State Department was forced to cancel meetings with Facebook.

State Department Cancels Facebook Meetings After Trump Judge Blocks Biden Regime From Censoring Conservatives Online | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

A huge win for freedom of speech!

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[GURPS]

The Biden administration revealed on Wednesday plans to appeal a judge’s order blocking several government agencies and officials from contacting social media companies.

Lawyers with the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a notice of appeal in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, setting up a clash over U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty’s judgement on July 4.

Doughty, who was nominated to his position by former President Donald Trump, granted the injunction in a lawsuit brought in 2022 by the GOP attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri over alleged collusion between the federal government and social media companies to censor “disfavored” speech in violation of the First Amendment.

Biden Administration To Appeal Judge’s Order Blocking Contact With Social Media Companies

The Biden administration revealed on Wednesday plans to appeal a judge’s order blocking several government agencies and officials from contacting social media companies. Lawyers with the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a notice of appeal in the United States District Court for the Western...

www.dailywire.com

 

[vraiblonde]

Democrats are terrified of debate because their halfwit ideas don't stand up under scrutiny. Of course they want to control the narrative and ban dissent lest they be outed for the totalitarian aholes they are. But it doesn't matter because their cult members - half this country - will believe anything they say no matter how absurd, and fall to the ground in a keening fit when anyone disagrees with them.

Democrat TLDR:
Banning porn in elementary schools = censorship = bad
Banning opinions/studies that conflict with their ideology = preventing misinformation = good

 

[SamSpade]

Democrats are terrified of debate because their halfwit ideas don't stand up under scrutiny. Of course they want to control the narrative and ban dissent lest they be outed for the totalitarian aholes they are. But it doesn't matter because their cult members - half this country - will believe anything they say no matter how absurd, and fall to the ground in a keening fit when anyone disagrees with them.

Democrat TLDR:
Banning porn in elementary schools = censorship = bad
Banning opinions/studies that conflict with their ideology = preventing misinformation = good

The whole point of freedom of speech is so that different opinions are given and people use their God-given reason to decide what they should believe.

It's the Democrat's solution - which coincides EXACTLY with how Communists express - is to censor or shut down "lies" so that only the "truth" is mentioned.

The answer to lies - is truth. Not censorship.

To all Democrats - how would you feel if the "truth" was being determined by people you don't like?
Isn't freedom better?

 

[GURPS]

Even though the Washington Post clearly thinks the injunction is a stinker, the momentum seems to be favoring more free speech. According to the article, censorship staff at social media companies is shrinking from its peak:

Tech companies are already taking significant steps to unwind programs to combat disinformation on their services. Under the helm of Elon Musk, Twitter has slashed its Trust and Safety teams and initiatives. Amid financial pressure and company layoffs, Meta has also made cuts to similar teams.

The WaPo article, offended by the judge’s order, was a snakepit of internal inconsistency and logical fallacies. First, whenever it argued that the government critically needs to be able to communicate with social media companies, it only mentioned areas already carved out by the order: national security, elections interference, and criminal activity (think child pornography).

But whenever the article approvingly cited actual examples of government interference, none of them were actually in the three exempt categories. Most of the WaPo’s examples were about covid and face masks, neither of which are national security, elections interference, or criminal activity, which just proves the judge’s point.

Finally, and most stupidly, the article argued over and over that government censorship was never really that big of a deal anyway. One example is the aforementioned reference to shrinking censorship staff, and that government involvement was never really that bad anyway:

The person added, however, that “information sharing between platforms and government in this area was always fairly minimal.”

Un huh. This is a classic self-defeating argument in the face of an injunction. It’s so simple. Let me explain how lawyers often torpedo their own cases. To illustrate, I’ll using “me” as the lawyer seeking the injunction, and “them” as the lawyer opposing the injunction:

ME: Judge, we need this injunction to stop the defendants from further harming my client.

JUDGE: Okay. Counsel for the defense, what say you?

THEM: Judge, there’s no need for an injunction because my client isn’t even doing the stuff that Mr. Childers claims is happening. This whole thing is a joke.

JUDGE: Okay. Mr. Childers, how do you respond?

ME: Well, Judge, they just made this pretty easy for you. If they aren’t doing it, then there’s no harm in you entering an order forbidding them from doing it, is there?

JUDGE: An excellent point. I will grant the injunction. Please send me a proposed order.

The Washington Post’s third-grade-level article stepped right into that classic logical fallacy. If the government isn’t actually censoring Americans, or if it was “always fairly minimal,” then there’s no harm in an injunction forbidding them from censoring Americans, is there?

Finally, and most internally inconsistent, the WaPo ended its article by making the case FOR the injunction:

“The really tough question is when does the government cross the line from responding to speech — which it can and should do — to coercing platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech?” [Jeff Kosseff, a cybersecurity law professor at the U.S. Naval Academy] said. “The judge here believes that line was crossed, and he certainly cited some persuasive examples,” such as administration officials suggesting antitrust actions against tech firms or changes to their liability protections while criticizing their content moderation efforts.

And there you have it. That final paragraph should have been the whole story. If my old J-school professor could hand out F’s from the grave, the Washington Post would have to change its major from journalism to shop.

☕️ LOBOTOMIZED INCONSISTENCY ☙ Thursday, July 6, 2023 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Biden appeals the censorship injunction and WaPo has childlike thoughts; amazing Lancet paper destroys jabs; mysterious SADS cases; AI meets social media; Politico thinks no cocaine culprit; and more.

www.coffeeandcovid.com