29 minutes ago
Darren Beattie: "I encourage everyone to go and read the ruling of this Missouri Judge"Judge ruling:
11:49 minutesskip first minute and half
https://rumble.com/embed/v2vy6km/?pub=4
Ruling here: i’ll post pdf next
https://first-heritage-foundation.s3.amazonaws.com/live_files/2023/07/Missouri-v.-Biden-742023-Injunction.pdf
HISTORIC FIRST: Judge Blocks Biden Admin’s ‘Orwellian’ Collusion With Big Tech to Suppress Free Speech
Tyler O'Neil / July 05, 2023
On the Fourth of July, a federal judge condemned the Biden administration’s collusion with Big Tech companies to suppress Americans’ free speech as “similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’” and issued a historic order temporarily blocking the federal government from pressuring tech companies to stifle speech.
“It is fitting that the judge granted a first-of-its-kind injunctionon the Fourth of July because that day paved the way for our country to adopt the First Amendment,” Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a Republican, told The Daily Signalin a statement Wednesday. “We had to fight the Revolutionary War in part because King George tried to stamp out political dissent. Now, the Biden administration is trying to censor speech he disagrees with. Fortunately, and thanks to the brave Founders on the Fourth of July, we now have the First Amendment to push back against the Biden administration’s censorship regime.”
“It could not be more perfect timing,” Louisiana Solicitor General Liz Murrill, a Republican, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview Wednesday. “I can’t ever recall such a sprawling government enterprise to censor American speech being unraveled in this manner.”
Bailey and Murrill are leading the case Missouri v. Biden..
“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,’” Doughty wrote.His ruling included a preliminary injunction, barring federal officials from colluding with Big Tech companies to suppress free speech.
Gene Hamilton, vice president of America First Legal, which represents two plaintiffs in the case against the Biden administration, told The Daily Signal he did not consider it a “coincidence” that Doughty issued the order on July Fourth.
“It’s a monumental decision for the American people—a great day for all Americans,” Hamilton said in a phone interview Wednesday. “It was a great, great Fourth of July.”
“It was only appropriate for this decision to be rendered on Independence Day,” he added. “It’s a reaffirmation of our enduring principles on which our country was founded.”
“The Biden administration has made combating ‘mis-,’ ‘dis-,’ and ‘malinformation’ a high priority,” Hamilton added. “They appear to view it as a systemic threat to the existence of democracy when nothing could be further from the truth. The solution to ‘mis-’ and ‘disinformation’ and false information is simply the truth and more information, and letting people draw their own conclusions.”
The lawyer also saidhe had never heard of another judge issuing an injunction to prevent the federal government from directing Big Tech to suppress speech online.
Doughty’s ruling notes that the plaintiffs in the case—Missouri and Louisiana, represented by Bailey and Murrill; doctors who spoke out against the COVID-19 mandates, such as Martin Kulldorff, Jayanta Bhattacharya, and Aaron Kheriaty; Gateway Pundit founder Jim Hoft; and anti-lockdown advocate and Health Freedom Louisiana Co-Director Jill Hines—allege that the Biden administration “suppressed conservative-leaning free speech” on the Hunter Biden laptop story ahead of the 2020 presidential election; on COVID-19 issues, including its origin, masks, lockdowns, and vaccines; on election integrity in the 2020 presidential election; on the security of voting by mail; on the economy; and on President Joe Biden himself.
Doughty’sinjunction names various federal agencies—including the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (the agency Dr. Anthony Fauci formerly directed), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the State Department—and officials, including HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre.
It forbids those people and agencies from “meeting with social media companiesfor the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing…..
It also specificallybars collaboration with third-party organizationsaiming at urging social media companies to suppress forms of speech…
https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/07/05/historic-first-judge-blocks-biden-admins-orwellian-collusion-big-tech-suppress-free-speech/
Ruling attached:
https://first-heritage-foundation.s3.amazonaws.com/live_files/2023/07/Missouri-v.-Biden-742023-Injunction.pdf
>>19135199.Great Intro by Judge
ge 2 of 155 PageID #: 26793
I.
INTRODUCTION
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
This case is about the Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The explosion of social-media platforms has resulted in unique free speech issues— this is especially true in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. 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 theDefendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech.
Although thecensorship 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. It is the purpose of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of the market, whether it be by government itself or private licensee. Red Lion Broadcasting Co., v. F.C.C., 89 S. Ct. 1794, 1806 (1969).
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, through public pressure campaigns, private meetings, and other forms of direct communication, regarding what Defendants described as “disinformation,” “misinformation,” and “malinformation,” have colluded with and/or coerced social-media platforms to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social-media platforms. Plaintiffs also allege that the suppression constitutes government action, and that it is a violation of Plaintiffs’ freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states:
==Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (emphasis added).
First Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. I.==…
Read it anons l, excellent injunction. Impressive anons, most impressive