Judge in Missouri v Biden is Not Impressed By the Government’s Bilge

The judge in the Missouri v Biden lawsuit thinks the government’s case is transparent because he can see right through it. Just three days after Biden’s inauguration, the government was censoring stories that were not favorable to the Biden regime. The Twitter Files proved coordination between the Biden caliphate and social networks, who were willing stooges for the Biden administration. The FBI actually paid social media for their censorship. Democrats are frantic in shopping for a judge that puts ideology above the Constitution.

Biden administration began with the social media companies almost the second they ascended to the throne:

Literally 3 days after Biden took office, the government’s censorship operation was flying. The White House immediately launched a pressure campaign on social media platforms to suppress supposed “COVID misinformation.” The Surgeon General launched his signature “disinformation” initiative at a Virality Project event at the Stanford Internet Observatory. And, Biden himself publicly pressured platforms on July 16, 2021—one day after his press secretary Jennifer Psaki and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy did the same, as the plaintiffs describe in their filing.

Everyone from COVID lockdown, vax, and masking critics to scientists who had conflicting data in their hands were immediately censored because it did not fit the Biden narrative. These experts just wanted to be able to reach the public. Biden punished them with censorship and some of them were driven from their jobs to get them to shut up.

All to promote the government’s approved narrative, their chosen treatments, and favored pharmaceutical partners. There were no allowances made for First Amendment Rights in their dogged pursuit of complete control of the information flow. Posts, memes, papers and tweets that were contrary to that goal, even if correct were flagged as “disinformation,” and smothered or completely removed, and the author was blocked from whatever the site was after said “infraction” were theatrically deemed either enough or so serious action must be taken to protect the public.

From Hotair

As the evidence proves, there was conspiracy behind the censorship. The White House campaign integrated with the Surgeon General, the CDC, and Census Bureau campaigns drew directly from White House pressure. NIAID and NIH censorship efforts draw from the CDC. CISA, FBI, DOJ, ODNI [Office of the Director of National Intelligence] and other agencies worked together and all participate in meetings together to facilitate pressure and censorship. CISA and the FBI worked together to censor the Biden laptop story. NIAID and NIH conspired together to censor the lab-leak theory and Great Barrington Declaration [co-authored by plaintiffs Bhattacharya and Kulldorff]. NIAID [Fauci’s former division at the NIH] is embedded in White House censorship activities. CISA and GEC [Global Engagement Center, the State Department’s censorship arm] coordinate with each other and with NGOs like the Election Integrity Partnership. This isn’t a guess. They have the evidence. This happened.

Biden had weaponized every facet of the government, enlisted and encouraged mainstream media organs to act against the American people and, most importantly for him, against voices of dissent.

…The Biden administration has not directly ordered Facebook or Twitter to censor speech on their platforms, but various government agencies have advised the social media companies to watch out for “misinformation” and suggested that certain narratives must be quashed. Big Tech has collaborated with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the FBI to enforce the official narratives on the COVID-19 pandemic and other issues in the name of safety under what critics call an illusion of scientific consensus.

Bailey’s free-speech lawsuit has turned up documents in which Facebook admitted to the White House that it suppressed “often true” content regarding COVID-19 vaccines on the platform, because it might make people hesitant to take a vaccine.

In March of this year, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty denied the government’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

In a thorough and well-reasoned decision, Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana has denied government defendants’ motion to dismiss in State of Missouri, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., et al. The New Civil Liberties Alliance, a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group, represents renowned epidemiologists Drs. Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, as well as Dr. Aaron Kheriaty and Ms. Jill Hines, in a lawsuit that has exposed an elaborate, multi-agency federal government censorship regime. Judge Doughty wrote, “The Court finds that the Complaint alleges significant encouragement and coercion that converts the otherwise private conduct of censorship on social media platforms into state action, and is unpersuaded by Defendants’ arguments to the contrary.”

Discovery in the lawsuit unequivocally establishes that at least eleven federal agencies and sub-agencies, including CDC and DHS, directed social media companies to censor viewpoints that conflict with the federal government’s messaging on topics ranging from Covid-19 to elections. Federal officials engaged in a lawless, expansive censorship campaign that employed illicit tactics—including coercion, collusion and coordination—on social media companies to suppress the airing of disfavored perspectives on Covid-19 and other topics. As a direct result of state action, NCLA’s clients were blacklisted, shadow-banned, de-boosted, throttled, and censored, merely for articulating views opposed to government-approved views on Covid-19 restrictions and regulations. Judge Doughty held that “Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged state action under the theories of joint participation, entwinement, and the combining of factors such as subsidization, authorization, and encouragement.”