Missouri v. Biden might be most important legal case in U.S. history [updated]

[rangerrebew]

U.S. government says it owns everyone’s THOUGHTS, calling it “cognitive infrastructure”
Sunday, May 28, 2023 by: Ethan Huff
 
Image: U.S. government says it owns everyone’s THOUGHTS, calling it “cognitive infrastructure”
(Natural News) The fight is on to hold the United States government responsible for colluding with social media companies to censor Americans’ free speech rights online.

Missouri v. Biden, which was filed on May 5, 2022, has been taking quite the trip through the court system. It was amended three separate times, most recently to add an amendment that transforms the case into a class action suit due to the sheer number of Americans impacted by the government’s crimes.

Uncover DC has been tracking the case, offering play-by-play details about what has been happening with the case over the past year. The plaintiffs, including the states of Missouri and Louisiana, pushed for expedited discovery to obtain a limited set of evidence and depositions from certain individuals.

“They argued that this evidence would allow them to make the case for a temporary injunction to stop the government from infringing on the first amendment rights of Plaintiffs and their citizens,” Uncover DC reported.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2023-05-28-us-government-owns-your-thoughts-cognitive-infrastructure.html

[PeteS in CA]

Forgive me for thinking "Natural News" a able "news" source, but here is the Missouri AG's webpage about this lawsuit, https://ago.mo.gov/home/news/2023/01/09/missouri-attorney-general-releases-more-documents-exposing-white-house's-social-media-censorship-scheme :

Missouri Attorney General Releases More Documents Exposing White House's Social Media Censorship Scheme

Jan 9, 2023, 17:26 PM by AG Bailey

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - In order to protect the constitutional liberties of all Americans, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey continues to pursue litigation in Missouri v. Biden, a civil case demonstrating that top officials in the federal government colluded with Big tech social media companies to violate Americans’ right to free speech under the First Amendment. Today’s documents display White House Digital Director Robert Flaherty and his team’s efforts to censor opposing viewpoints on major social media platforms, such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.

“I want to protect Missourians and the freedoms they enjoy, which is why as Attorney General, I will always defend the Constitution. This case is about the Biden Administration’s blatant disregard for the First Amendment and its collusion with Big Tech social media companies to suppress speech it disagrees with,” said Attorney General Bailey. “I will always fight back against unelected bureaucrats who seek indoctrinate the people of this state by violating our constitutional right to free and open debate.” 

Exhibits include:

* The White House asks Twitter to censor Robert Kennedy, Jr., a known critic of the White House’s COVID-19 narrative

* The White House directs Facebook to shut down conservative voices Tucker Carlson and Tomi Lahren

* White House Digital Director Flaherty scolds Facebook, saying that he “really couldn’t care less about products unless they’re having measureable impact” at suppressing speech

* Flaherty informs Facebook that “misinformation around the vaccine” is “a concern shared at the highest (and I mean highest) level of the WH”

* Flaherty demands that Facebook to step up its operations of “removing bad information” on vaccines

* In regard to “anti-vax” posts, Flaherty tells Facebook that “slowing it down seems reasonable”

* Facebook assures Flaherty that “in addition to removing vaccine misinformation, we have been focused on reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines that does not contain actionable misinformation,” including “often-true content”

* Flaherty vehemently disagrees with Facebook’s decision not to take down a Tucker Carlson video on COVID-19 vaccines, stating “not for nothing but last time we did this dance, it ended in an insurrection”

* Flaherty tells Twitter that “if your product is appending misinformation to our tweets that seems like a pretty fundamental issue”

* Facebook assures Flaherty that they “remove claims public health authorities tell us have been debunked or are unsupported by evidence”

* Flaherty accuses Twitter of “Total Calvinball” and “bending over backwards” to tolerate disfavored speech after Twitter refuses to comply with White House demands to censor a video

Missouri v. Biden was filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana on May 5, 2022. They filed for a Motion for Expedited Preliminary Injunction-Related Discovery on June 17, 2022, and that motion was granted on July 12, 2022, clearing the way for Missouri and Louisiana to gather discovery and documents from Biden Administration and social media companies.

The request for depositions was filed on October 10, 2022, and that motion was granted on October 21, 2022, allowing Missouri and Louisiana to depose top-ranking officials in the federal government under oath. So far, Missouri and Louisiana have deposed Dr. Anthony Fauci, FBI Special Agent Elvis Chan, Eric Waldo of the Surgeon General’s Office, Carol Crawford of the CDC, and Daniel Kimmage of the State Department. Depositions continue.

For some reason AG Bailey failed to include something blatant in his exhibits. Could it be that "Natural News" made @#$% up?

[Bigun]

Missouri v. Biden might be most important legal case in U.S. history

From what I’ve read, proof our federal government wants to kill free speech is overwhelming.

Until yesterday, I’d not read any documents in the lawsuit brought by the states of Missouri, Louisiana et al vs. President Biden. Because of this, I didn’t fully grasp the stunning claims made by the plaintiffs, nor realize how overwhelming the evidence is that supports this case.

Yesterday, I read the first 54 pages of a 354-page legal document that was filed with a federal district court in Louisiana on March 3, 2023.

I now better understand why some people believe this might be the most important legal case in U.S. history.

In a nutshell, attorneys for the plaintiffs are compiling and presenting a mountain of evidence that shows actors for the U.S. government have conspired to nullify the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution...

-- excerpt, rest at link above --

[mountaineer]

Eric Schmitt
@Eric_Schmitt
🚨BREAKING: A Federal Judge in Missouri v. Biden just granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the FBI, DOJ, DHS & other agencies from working with Big Tech to censor on social media
Big win for the First Amendment on this Independence Day🇺🇸
I’m proud to have led the fight.


Eric Schmitt
@Eric_Schmitt
White House officials, CDC & others are stopped cold. We need to continue the fight to take down the Vast Censorship Enterprise.
Their view of “misinformation” isn’t an excuse to censor.  This is the most important free speech case in a generation.
Freedom is on the march

[PeteS in CA]

BREAKING: Federal judge issues injunction against WH, gov't agencies on speech suppression

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2023/07/04/auto-draft-119-n562425

Happy birthday, America — and RIP to its newly erected “Ministry of Truth.” That term comes directly from federal Judge Terry Doughty in the Western District of Louisiana, who issued an injunction a couple of hours ago that takes direct aim at the government-media censorship complex. Concluding that plaintiffs in the lawsuit have a strong likelihood of proving that the US government suppressed dissent — and particularly conservative dissent — Doughty ordered the Biden administration and its executive agencies to cease any coordination with social-media companies:

The Plaintiffs are 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. 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. American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country.

This is an injunction, not a decision on the merits of the case.

[Smokin Joe]

BREAKING: Federal judge issues injunction against WH, gov't agencies on speech suppression

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2023/07/04/auto-draft-119-n562425


This is an injunction, not a decision on the merits of the case.

Correct. It is a preliminary stay of execution, not necessarily overturning the sentence.

While it stops the WH from implementing the policies, it does not necessarily stop them from preparing to do so, and the second it is overturned or lifted (if that is the case), everything will come out of the starting blocks.

[mountaineer]

US Judge restricts Biden officials from contact with social media firms
By Kanishka Singh
July 4, 20235:08 PM EDT Updated an hour ago

WASHINGTON, July 4 (Reuters) - A U.S. federal judge on Tuesday restricted some agencies and officials of the administration of President Joe Biden from meeting and communicating with social media companies to moderate their content, according to a court filing.

The injunction came in response to a lawsuit brought by Republican attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, who alleged that U.S. government officials went too far in efforts to encourage social media companies to address posts they worried could contribute to vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic or upend elections.

The ruling said government agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services and the FBI could not talk to 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" under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

A White House official said the Justice Department was reviewing the order and will evaluate its options. ... Reuters

[christian]

This is the better government so many promised us would be better than anything Trump could or would do.

Fools love the near dictatorship of socialist Communist and the desolation and loss of liberties, better than the prosperities and freedoms Trump encouraged Americans to live under!

When damn fools get their ways, watch out, tyrants will prevail.  The lies turn sour and toxic, still getting their ways........
 

[Smokin Joe]

Okay...


I'm thinking of an all too common phrase...

Two words.

I bet you know what they are. Keep 'em.

[christian]

never trumpers

socialist communist

one party

perverted democrats

  

[mountaineer]

SCOTUS arguments today.

 KBJ expresses concern that First Amendment (you know, free speech) "hamstrings" the government:

https://twitter.com/SystemUpdate_/status/1769753959315427812

[mountaineer]

System Update
@SystemUpdate_
Kentaji Brown Jackson grills LA solicitor general, says that because the govt can occasionally censor, they can also occasionally coerce:

KBJ: “Whether or not the government can do this… depends on the application of our First Amendment jurisprudence.

There may be circumstances in which the government could prohibit certain speech on the internet or otherwise.”
11:35 AM · Mar 18, 2024

Anyone else think maybe she got her law degree from a box of Cracker Jack?

[DefiantMassRINO]

 

Cognitive infrastructure of most American males:

[Bigun]

Anyone else think maybe she got her law degree from a box of Cracker Jack?

 

[mountaineer]

Greg Price
@greg_price11
"I'm concerned that the Constitution is limiting the power of the government" is a completely insane thing for somebody to say who sits on the highest court in the land
1:53 PM · Mar 18, 2024

RedWave Press
@RedWave_Press
She is saying the quiet part out loud. The government no longer wants to allow free speech in America. If democrats get their way America will be like China.
1:57 PM · Mar 18, 2024

Ain't affirmative action grand?

[Bigun]

Ain't affirmative action grand?

"The Federal Government is the creature of the States. It is not a party to the Constitution, but the result of it the creation of that agreement which was made by the States as parties. It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain specific objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution. Shall the agent be permitted to judge the extent of its own powers, without reference to his constituent? To a certain extent, he is compelled to do this, in the very act of exercising them, but always in subordination to the authority by whom his powers were conferred. If this were not so, the result would be, that the agent would possess every power which the agent could confer, notwithstanding the plainest and most express terms of the grant. This would be against all principle and all reason. If such a rule would prevail in regard to government, a written constitution would be the idlest thing imaginable. It would afford no barrier against the usurpations of the government, and no security for the rights and liberties of the people. If then the Federal Government has no authority to judge, in the last resort, of the extent of its own powers, with what propriety can it be said that a single department of that government may do so? Nay. It is said that this department may not only judge for itself, but for the other departments also. This is an absurdity as pernicious as it is gross and palpable. If the judiciary may determine the powers of the Federal Government, it may pronounce them either less or more than they really are. "

Abel Upshur, The Federal government: Its true nature and character

(Abel Upshur served as Secretary of the Navy 1841-43)

[GtHawk]

Cognitive infrastructure of most American males:

Does that come with a smother warning

[GtHawk]

Anyone else think maybe she got her law degree from a box of Cracker Jack?

Well they have been putting some real crappy prizes in Cracker Jack for a lot of years now so that...or the affirmative action lottery because she's dumber than a

[Bigun]

"Liberty and security in government depend not on the limits,
which the rulers may please to assign to the exercise of their own powers, but on the boundaries, within which their powers are circumscribed by the constitution. With us, the powers of magistrates, call them by whatever name you please, are the grants of the people . . . The supreme power is in them; and in them, even when a constitution is formed, and government is in operation, the supreme power still remains. A portion of their
authority they, indeed, delegate; but they delegate that portion in whatever manner, in whatever measure, for whatever time, to whatever persons, and on whatever conditions they choose to fix."

U.S. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson (Lectures, 1790-1791)