A US court has decided to go for a preliminary injunction in a case looking into the Biden administration’s collusion with Big Tech, aimed at imposing censorship on social media users – the ruling now seeking to prevent this from continuing; but the Biden White House doesn’t seem to care.
The US district judge who issued the injunction, Terry A. Doughty, however, seems to very much do: the ruling went as far as to say that during the pandemic, the US government “assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’.”
The lawsuit was brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana.
The current administration and its media supporters like to talk about the importance of “election integrity” – but how about supporting the integrity of your judicial system?
Apparently, not so fast. The judge’s conclusions came upon reviewing the attorney generals’ allegations from the filing – about the federal government and social media platforms coming together to censor speech, all the while claiming they were fighting Covid and election misinformation.
And for that reason, the injunction now restricts a large number of Biden administration representatives as well as the FBI and other agencies, from continuing with the practice – i.e., flagging posts for tech companies to delete or suppress, “or urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing” such outcomes “in any manner.” The judge also ordered an end to collaboration with the Election Integrity Partnership and similar groups.
One of those named in the ruling is White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, whose initial reaction has been one of defiance of the court. What the judge scathingly compared to the “Ministry of Truth” will continue to do its thing, is the sum of Jean-Pierre’s comments.
And she sees nothing Orwellian about it – on the contrary, it’s all supposedly sound public service. Pressuring, urging, encouraging… etc. social media companies, is “promotion” of that “positive” policy – at least in White House speak.
“We are going to continue to promote responsible actions to protect public health, safety and… security when confronted by challenges like a deadly pandemic and foreign attacks on our elections, so we’re gonna continue to… promote that in a responsible way,” said Jean-Pierre, when asked what effect the ruling would have on the administration’s actions.
And there isn’t even an attempt to really deny the essence of the allegations from the lawsuit, considering Jean-Pierre’s comment of this nature: “Our view remains that social media platforms have a critical responsibility to take action or to… take account of the effects their platforms are having to the American people.”
And when the government is prevented by the Constitution from inflicting censorship on protected speech, it appears to see no problem in circumventing this “nuisance” by being the one to “remind” social media platforms of their “critical responsibility.”
The Biden administration is fervently seeking an emergency halt to an order that prohibits certain government entities and officials from liaising with social media companies on content moderation issues.
In a bid to counteract Doughty’s order, the administration wasted no time in directing an appeal to the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals the day after the order was issued. The administration is poised to beseech the 5th Circuit to intervene if Doughty remains steadfast in upholding his order during the appeals process.
Doughty’s decree specifically prevents government bodies, including the FBI and the Department of Health and Human Services, from engaging with social media companies with the aim of influencing or pressuring them to eliminate, suppress, or alter content that encompasses protected free speech as per the First Amendment, albeit with limited exceptions.
Government officials have defended their communications with social media platforms by asserting that the intent was to mitigate the spread of “misinformation” concerning COVID-19 vaccines, with the ultimate goal of reducing avoidable fatalities. Furthermore, they contend that the plaintiffs’ grievances are moot as the actions they are challenging concluded over a year ago.
