A federal judge in Louisiana recently made a significant ruling suggesting that the Biden Administration violated the First Amendment through its censorship of dissenting opinions on social media platforms. The judge referred to these actions as “Orwellian,” adding these moves by the Biden administration were “arguably involving the most massive attack against free speech in United States history.” As a result, a preliminary injunction was issued, preventing several federal officials and agencies, including the DOJ and FBI, from communicating with social media companies in an effort to suppress constitutionally protected speech.
Under this injunction, federal officials like Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra are prohibited from collaborating with social media companies to discourage or remove protected speech. These efforts often involve censoring content related to anti-vaccine sentiments, accurate COVID-19 death statistics, or individuals’ endeavors to raise awareness about the low percentage of deaths caused by the virus, especially among children.
In fact, the actual percentage of COVID-19 deaths was approximately 0.3%, even lower for children, with estimates suggesting a mere 0.03% chance of mortality from the virus. If this information had not been suppressed and widely known, it could have influenced decisions regarding school closures and potentially mitigated the adverse effects of lockdowns on children.
This ruling is part of an ongoing legal battle that alleges the administration pressured social media platforms to remove posts containing misinformation. The judge criticized the government’s actions, accusing them of suppressing conservative viewpoints. It’s important to note that this ruling can be appealed, and as of now, the Justice Department has not commented on the decision.
The Biden administration, along with the DOJ and FBI, has made various efforts to suppress the dissemination of information by exerting pressure on social media companies. One notable example is the controversial Hunter Biden laptop story, which predates Biden’s presidency. Despite being verifiably accurate, it is believed that the administration, with Biden’s involvement, attempted to use this story to influence the election in favor of Biden and undermine Trump’s campaign. The story was wrongly labeled as “Russian disinformation.” Other attempts include discussions about election irregularities in the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, with implications that one cannot express the opinion that Trump won the election or that Biden’s victory was influenced by irregularities. It remains uncertain whether these censorship endeavors will be addressed, and whether the Biden administration will persist in pressuring social media companies to censor content that they perceive as detrimental to their own agenda.
Victory Hooray