Trump-Appointed Judge Issues Blistering Ruling Against 'Orwellian' Biden, Bans Fed Contact with Social Media Companies
A federal court judge on Tuesday barred multiple federal departments and federal officials from contacting social media companies to remove content the judge said is protected by the First Amendment.
The order from U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty of Louisiana bans numerous federal agencies — including the departments of Justice, Homeland Security and State and senior officials including Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre — from telling social media companies to remove posts.
The order said that everyone in the almost-three-page-long list of names and agencies is banned from “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.”
They were also barred from “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,” said Doughty, who was nominated to the bench by then-President Donald Trump in 2017.
His order also banned those parties from “collaborating, coordinating, partnering, switchboarding, and/or jointly working with the Election Integrity Partnership, the Virality Project, the Stanford Internet Observatory, or any like project or group for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content posted with social-media companies containing protected free speech.”
The order followed a ruling in which Doughty slammed the Biden administration for censorship.
“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,’” he wrote.
In giving the plaintiffs in the case, who include scientists, media outlets and the states of Missouri and Louisiana, a temporary injunction through his order, Doughty said they were “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,” the judge wrote.
Consider reading the entire ruling.
It’s a devastating indictment of US government censorship, and a frightening peek into how close we have come to totalitaranism.https://t.co/yHN4xf6nXP
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) July 4, 2023
“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,” he said.
Doughty observed that 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 the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech,” he wrote.
Consider reading the entire ruling.
It’s a devastating indictment of US government censorship, and a frightening peek into how close we have come to totalitaranism.https://t.co/yHN4xf6nXP
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) July 4, 2023
“Although the censorship alleged in this case almost exclusively targeted conservative speech, the issues raised herein go beyond party lines,” the judge said.
Doughty Order by The Western Journal on Scribd
“The right to free speech is not a member of any political party and does not hold any political ideology,” he wrote. “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.”
Doughty noted the case included a laundry list of issues where speech was suppressed, including “1) suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the 2020 Presidential election; (2) suppressing speech about the lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origin; (3) suppressing speech about the efficiency of masks and COVID-19 lockdowns; (4) suppressing speech about the efficiency of COVID-19 vaccines; (5) suppressing speech about election integrity in the 2020 presidential election; (6) suppressing speech about the security of voting by mail; (7) suppressing parody content about Defendants; (8) suppressing negative posts about the economy; and (9) suppressing negative posts about President Biden.”
This is a truly astonishing ruling that will compromise the health, safety, and yes, liberty of some so others can spread false, harmful information in the name of free speech. @rgoodlaw links to the order itself; here is the opinion: https://t.co/1J5DD8LH4c https://t.co/Im3QSneQGw
— Lisa Rubin (@lawofruby) July 4, 2023
And that’s not all.
“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,” Doughty wrote.
In conclusion, he said, “The Plaintiffs have presented substantial evidence in support of their claims that they were the victims of a far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign.”
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
