Big win for Free Speech

[Thinker101]

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 turns the Constitution on its head,” Murrill declared. “It flagrantly violates the First Amendment rights of everyone in this country.” She further noted that when Americans challenge the Biden administration on this, “their answer is not to pull back on violating people’s rights; it’s to defend the enterprise. It’s to double down on speech as dangerous.”

Thank you, Judge Terry Doughty,’.

Judge Blocks Biden's 'Orwellian' Big Tech Collusion in July 4 Injunction

 

[1srelluc]

 

[excalibur]

See:

Federal Judge Terry Doughty releases opinion in Missouri v. Biden on July 4th, finding the government likely violated the First Amendment by ...

Fabulous! And this judge released his decision on the Fourth of July, adding a rather loud emphasis. Unlike the "judges" in DC who rubber stamp the cases against J6 defendants while ignoring both the Constitution and statutory laws. Happy Independence Day!

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[MinTrut]

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 turns the Constitution on its head,” Murrill declared. “It flagrantly violates the First Amendment rights of everyone in this country.” She further noted that when Americans challenge the Biden administration on this, “their answer is not to pull back on violating people’s rights; it’s to defend the enterprise. It’s to double down on speech as dangerous.”

Thank you, Judge Terry Doughty,’.

Judge Blocks Biden's 'Orwellian' Big Tech Collusion in July 4 Injunction

Thank you for posting this.

Unfortunately, the judge has greatly overreached, and this will not stand.

The manner in which the Deep Swamp orchestrated their speech suppression was, sad to say, within the lines.

Big Tech MAY be held accountable at some point, but this judge, as well-meaning as they may be, is barking up the wrong tree.

 

[MinTrut]

See:

Federal Judge Terry Doughty releases opinion in Missouri v. Biden on July 4th, finding the government likely violated the First Amendment by ...

Fabulous! And this judge released his decision on the Fourth of July, adding a rather loud emphasis. Unlike the "judges" in DC who rubber stamp the cases against J6 defendants while ignoring both the Constitution and statutory laws. Happy Independence Day!

www.usmessageboard.com

As many times as people are reminded that TT and Twitter are unavailable to many posters here, people continue to use these sources...

 

[MinTrut]

Terry Doughty is a Trump appointed Q-cult loony who regularly gets castigated by the courts above him for being such a raging kook. That will happen again this time, given his decision was so batshit crazy.

In this case, the uber-snowflake conservatives are proclaiming that if someone else points out that they're lying, that's censorship. No one disputes that conservatives have the right to lie, and will always have the right to lie. Thing is, others have the right to point out that they're lying. Conservatives are trying to make it illegal to point out that they're lying. That is, conservatives are dialing the censorship up to "11".

And no one is surprised. When has any conservative _not_ tried to censor and burn books? Stalinism runs in the blood of conservatives, and anyone who won't censor is regarded as a dirty liberal.

And needless to say, it's the most prolific liars here who are most in favor of making it illegal to highlight conservative lies.

I've highlighted the relevant portion of your post above.

I'm afraid our conservative friends are indeed celebrating a hollow judicial effort to prevent the Deep Swamp from its ongoing work to suppress speech.

Remedy will only come from a case/cases in which Big Tech iterations (Google/Meta/etc.) are themselves challenged, and not from this judge's admirable but doomed efforts to de-fang the swamp itself.

 

[basquebromance]

social media sucks either way, whether they are regulated by Biden or not

 

[basquebromance]

 

[MinTrut]

Your stupidity is only a lagging indicator of your ignorance

The district court cited all the precedent supporting this public-private dialogue before cavalierly dismissing it, in part by declaring that “what is really telling is that virtually all of the free speech suppressed was ‘conservative’ free speech.” As if the cases that supported the government all of a sudden didn’t matter because this case involves conservatives? (One side note: Several of the allegations in the complaint occurred during the Trump administration. Communications between social media companies and government officials happen no matter who’s in power, and the First Amendment is not supposed to lean right or left.)

There is also the fact that the district court made no effort to identify circumstances where the government came even close to coercing social media companies into doing something they didn’t want to do. Take the allegations concerning hydroxychloroquine. On pages 52-53 of the opinion, the district court recites the very serious allegation that the Department of Health and Human Services “suppressed speech on hydroxychloroquine” by having Dr. Anthony Fauci make “statements on Good Morning America and on Andrea Mitchell Reports that hydroxychloroquine is not effective.” The next sentence then reports that, after this apparently very coerciveGood Morning America appearance, “social-media platforms censored” videos and material that were pro-hydroxychloroquine. That must have been quite the Good Morning America appearance. But joking aside: A government official appearing on a television show and stating that certain speech is disinformation does not come even remotely close to the government coercing social medial companies into removing that speech.

Let’s go to the tape.

Evidence.” “Scientific data.” “Clinical trials.”

That’s what informed Dr Fauci’s statements as opposed to the mad ramblings of a quack that “embraces demon semen” or a carnival barker who also suggested that people drink bleach to get rid of COVID-19.

So were the warnings on those very social media sites not to drink bleach to get rid of COVID-19 suppressing conservative speech as well?

This would be merely frustrating if hundreds of thousands of people didn’t die, in part, because of disinformation like the claims about hydroxychloroquine that Dr. Fauci is debunking.

The judge must be from Cloud Cuckoo Land.

Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: Law and information disorder

We begin today with law professors Leah Litman and Laurence H. Tribe writing for Just Security about the legal implications of the preliminary injunction issued by federal Judge Terry A. Doughty of the Western District of Louisiana in Missouri v....

www.dailykos.com

If you can’t dispute any of the information in the article, then stay out of the discussion.

Some excellent points.