President Ronald Reagan famously said, “The nine scariest words in the English language are: ‘I am a government employee, and I am here to help.'” When it comes to free speech, nothing could be more true.
The district court’s 13-page fact finding, supported by 591 footnotes, documents a massive campaign to “give in” due to “relentless pressure from the world’s most powerful public office.” [social-media platforms] according to the wishes of the government. ” But the Biden administration claims these platforms actively censored Americans’ voices for Biden’s persuasive “eloquence,” not for intimidation or coercion.
The White House has claimed that social media platforms consider themselves “partners” on the same “team” and beneficiaries of government “assistance,” but the same officials have spared the platforms. They are exposed to no abuse, accusations, or outright intimidation. Of course, this abusive relationship between big government and big tech didn’t start like this. The issue began to flare up in early 2017, when the FBI began coordinating secret meetings with content moderation officials across his seven platforms in Silicon Valley. Even then, platforms were threatening to “legislate” without further censorship, and inboxes were flooded with encrypted lists calling for massive censorship.
This quickly escalated into more aggressive behavior. By 2018, CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency) emphasized that “disinformation” from state and local officials should be censored across platforms, and in 2020, “Election Integrity” partnership was launched. A censorship project that has tied government agencies, the Stanford Internet Observatory, and social media platforms into an Orwellian knot. Over time, it would be rebranded as “The Virality Project” and added the ability to monitor tens of millions of social media “engagements” per week and facilitate widespread censorship.
By the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, this shadow ministry of truth had become fully integrated into the very fabric of our digital communications. As a result, it was not difficult for President Biden to double down on such an insidious system that was conveniently rigged for “the most extensive assault on free speech in American history.” Like water on rock, the unrelenting pressure from the “highest levels of the White House” (i.e. the highest levels) is unbearably heavy for these tech companies, providing a carrot for compliance on the one hand, and the other on the other. It turns out that he threatened full compliance. The disappearance of their business model. One after another, they bowed to pressure from the Biden White House and responded with “full compliance,” even if it meant censoring truthful information that did not violate existing platform policies.
U.S. District Judge Terry Doty in Louisiana granted historic injunction against 2022 lawsuit Louisiana and Missouri v. Biden On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed it twice. Both courts have found that the government’s systematic campaign to censor domestic speech through private institutions violates the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans. But the Biden administration continues to unapologetically impose censorship on platforms to this day, resulting in repressive editorial powers that affect all Americans.
Mr. Biden’s lawyers also made clear that the current administration has no intention of ceasing its unconstitutional actions. Instead, they expressed a strong desire to continue. That’s why this case before the U.S. Supreme Court is so important to our country. These censorship efforts are by no means vague or abstract, culminating in individual speakers and posts being flagged as “misinformation” or “disinformation” for daring to criticize government discourse. It was very specific. But governments do not have the power to secretly distort the marketplace of ideas or actively manipulate public debate to suit their own needs. Furthermore, “the state shall not induce, encourage, or encourage private persons to accomplish anything constitutionally prohibited.”norwood vs harrison).
Our limited findings reveal widespread suppression of speech that violates the fundamental nature of American freedom. When our government, its agencies, or its officials actively censor protected speech, it shakes to the core of who we are as citizens of a free nation with a government established by the people, for the people. It will be.
Please listen to our oral argument on March 18th. Here, evidence is brought to the fore rather than Orwellian “eloquence.”
Liz Murrill is the attorney general of Louisiana. She previously served as the state’s attorney general, and she was involved in the case from the beginning. The case is Marcy v. Missouri, No. 23-411, of the U.S. Supreme Court.
