{"id":1970399,"date":"2023-07-12T03:36:02","date_gmt":"2023-07-12T07:36:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/the-censorship-empire-strikes-back-after-missouri-v-biden-free-speech-victory\/"},"modified":"2023-07-12T03:40:06","modified_gmt":"2023-07-12T07:40:06","slug":"the-censorship-empire-strikes-back-after-missouri-v-biden-free-speech-victory","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/the-censorship-empire-strikes-back-after-missouri-v-biden-free-speech-victory\/","title":{"rendered":"Censorship Empire retaliates post Missouri v. Biden free speech win."},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">20<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fthe-censorship-empire-strikes-back-after-missouri-v-biden-free-speech-victory%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1970399&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><div class=\"article-content\">\n<h2>The Battle for Free Speech: Missouri v. Biden<\/h2>\n<p>The day after the federal court in <em>Missouri v. Biden<\/em> granted our request for a preliminary injunction against the government\u2019s censorship regime, law professors Leah Litman and Laurence Tribe published an <a href=\"https:\/\/slate.com\/news-and-politics\/2023\/07\/biden-administration-social-media-injunction-awful.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">article<\/a> in Slate slamming the court\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/storage.courtlistener.com\/recap\/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520\/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.293.0_1.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">ruling<\/a>. Framing the case in entirely partisan terms, Litman and Tribe\u2019s analysis betrayed an inadequate understanding of the First Amendment free speech guarantees and established limits on government power.<\/p>\n<p>The next day, the Biden administration requested a stay against the injunction (which was <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2023\/07\/10\/federal-judge-who-awarded-big-free-speech-win-in-missouri-v-biden-denies-biden-regimes-motion-to-stay\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">denied<\/a> by the district court judge) and appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit.<\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-2-long d-flex justify-content-center\" style=\"margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center; \" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-499838713\">\n<div id=\"div-gpt-ad-1379703300879-0\" class=\"mb-30\"><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-f78e3878766a5058df0667eaf7467ae8 fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-2\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-f78e3878766a5058df0667eaf7467ae8\"><\/div>\n<h3>Errors and Misunderstandings<\/h3>\n<p>As one of the plaintiffs in this case, I can clearly see errors of fact and legal reasoning in their diatribe against the decision. In the opening paragraph, the authors baldly assert, \u201cThe impetus behind the case is the now thoroughly debunked <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2023\/02\/09\/business\/free-speech-social-media-lawsuit.html\">conspiracy theory<\/a> that the government is somehow strong-arming Big Tech into censoring conservative speech and speakers in violation of the First Amendment.\u201d The incantation \u201cthoroughly <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/georgias-election-integrity-act-everything-you-need-to-know\/\" title=\"Georgia\u2019s Election Integrity Act: Everything You Need To Know\">debunked conspiracy theory<\/a>\u201d is meant here to function as a hypnotic device, absolving readers from actually examining the reams of evidence we present in the case.<\/p>\n<p>In another unintelligible rhetorical flourish, they assert in the closing paragraph that the court\u2019s ruling is \u201ctrying to make the infamous \u2018Twitter Files\u2019 into constitutional law.\u201d Anyone who has read the \u201cTwitter Files\u201d reports will have trouble understanding what that sentence even means. The court did not rely on the \u201cTwitter Files\u201d but rather on information in the case unearthed in preliminary discovery. Between these beguiling bookends, Litman and Tribe ignore the evidence and sidestep the relevant legal questions.<\/p>\n<h3>The Issue of Standing<\/h3>\n<p>The first error Litman and Tribe claim to uncover in the court\u2019s ruling is the issue of whether the plaintiffs \u2014 the states of Missouri and Louisiana and the five private plaintiffs, including this author \u2014 have standing to bring the case. But the preliminary injunction ruling did not address the question of standing because the court already ruled on this question in its previous response to the government\u2019s motion to dismiss. Any critique of the court\u2019s standing analysis should examine the actual document where the court addressed that question in detail. However, Litman and Tribe do not engage in that analysis.<\/p>\n<h3>The Imbalance of Power<\/h3>\n<p>Echoing the defense, Litman and Tribe seem to believe that government agencies or officials run afoul of the First Amendment free speech guarantees <em>only<\/em> when they \u201cjawbone\u201d or \u201cforce\u201d social media companies to censor specific content. As they frame it, the government was not really telling these companies what to do, but merely acting as a friendly neighborhood government agency: \u201cHey, Meta and Twitter, you all might want to have a look at these posts and see if they violate your terms of service. And if they don\u2019t, then hey, you might want to change your terms of service so that they do.\u201d<\/p>\n<div class=\"fdrlst__b89e9-5437360baaf9b5e5de3161241289d86c fdrlst__b89e9-paragraph-6\" id=\"fdrlst__b89e9-5437360baaf9b5e5de3161241289d86c\"><\/div>\n<p>The government\u2019s just trying to be helpful, don\u2019t you see?<\/p>\n<p>The problem with this framing is that it ignores the obvious imbalance of power between the government and private corporations: The boxer\u2019s fists are lethal weapons even if he does not overtly threaten to use them.<\/p>\n<p>The government has, in fact, jawboned, strongarmed, and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/federal-judge-orders-biden-administration-to-cooperate-in-social-media-collusion-lawsuit\/\" title=\"Federal Judge Orders Biden Administration to Cooperate in Social Media Collusion Lawsuit\">coerced social media companies<\/a>, as I described in \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/archive.is\/3SKtb\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">The White House Covid Censorship Machine<\/a>,\u201d which details one example among many we presented to the court: the frankly abusive relationship between White House official Rob Flaherty and a senior executive at Facebook.<\/p>\n<p>But even excluding the instances of overt and obvious coercion, prior free speech cases have established several other ways the government\u2019s behavior can constitute state action \u2014 the crucial legal line that cannot be crossed without violating the First Amendment. Overt coercion is only one of several ways the government\u2019s efforts to restrict speech can run afoul of the Constitution.<\/p>\n<h3>Established Precedents<\/h3>\n<p>Prior court cases have established that unconstitutional state action includes not just <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/457\/991\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">(1)<\/a> the state\u2019s exercise of \u201ccoercive power,\u201d but also <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/457\/991\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">(2)<\/a> when the state \u201cprovide[s] such significant encouragement, either overt or covert\u201d to private conduct; <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/457\/922\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">(3)<\/a> when \u201cprivate actors\u201d operate as \u201ca willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents\u201d; and <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/382\/296\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">(4)<\/a> when the \u201cformally \u2018private&#8217;\u201d action \u201cmay become so entwined with governmental policies or so impregnated with a governmental character as to become subject to the constitutional limitations placed upon state action.\u201d Furthermore, case precedent has established that specific features of the government\u2019s action may combine to create a compelling case for state action, especially where <a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/489\/602\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">(5)<\/a> a federal statute has immunized private conduct.<\/p>\n<p>As we argued in extensive detail in our motion for the preliminary injunction, all these factors are present in the government\u2019s actions: (1) coercion, (2) significant encouragement, (3) joint participation, (4) entwinement, and (5) legal immunity [Section 230 protections] combined with other factors [implicit and explicit threats of removing broad immunity].<\/p>\n<p>Litman and Tribe\u2019s analysis entirely ignores the evidence for the first of these and completely elides the other four forms of state action also clearly present in this case.<\/p>\n<h3>Legal vs. Illegal<\/h3>\n<p>Contrary to Litman and Tribe\u2019s framing, the issues, in this case, have nothing to do with liberal versus conservative divisions \u2014 the private plaintiffs include Democrats, Republicans, and independents. The relevant distinction is not left versus right but <em>legal versus illegal<\/em>. The only real question is whether federal officials and federal agencies have, or have not, violated the highest law of the land \u2014 namely, the United States Constitution.<\/p>\n<p>Examining the evidence we present from limited discovery, even prior to the case going to trial, the court correctly ruled that we are likely to prevail on the merits of our arguments: The government\u2019s systematically repeated behavior was clearly unlawful.<\/p>\n<p>Shortly after we filed this case, almost a year ago, I <a href=\"https:\/\/aaronkheriaty.substack.com\/p\/our-lawsuit-uncovers-army-of-federal?utm_source=%2Fsearch%2Fmissouri&#038;utm_medium=reader2\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">wrote<\/a>, \u201cThis evidence suggests we are uncovering the most serious, coordinated, and large-scale violation of First Amendment free speech rights by the federal government\u2019s executive branch in U.S. history<em>.<\/em> Period, full stop. Even wartime propaganda efforts never reached this level of censorship, nor did the government in days past have the power of today\u2019s social media at its disposal.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In last week\u2019s injunction ruling, the judge arrived at the same conclusion, writing: \u201cIf the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/reason-to-celebrate-on-july-4-judge-struck-blow-for-freedom-against-biden-admin-big-tech-censorship\/\" title=\"July 4: Judge Strikes Blow for Freedom Against Biden Admin, Big Tech Censorship\">present case arguably involves<\/a> the most massive attack against free speech in United States\u2019 history.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>This is clearly a strong claim, but, as I have <a href=\"https:\/\/www.tabletmag.com\/sections\/news\/articles\/slaying-censorship-leviathan\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">previously argued<\/a>, an entirely accurate one. Before the digital age, prior censorship cases typically involved the government suppressing one publisher, one article or book, or one source. In this case, we have a government-funded, government-coordinated \u201cmisinformation\u201d industry responsible for censoring hundreds of thousands of Americans on social media tens of millions of times. The breadth and scope of what has been <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2023\/03\/01\/6-ways-the-censorship-complex-silences-speech-it-doesnt-want-you-to-say-or-hear\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">dubbed<\/a> the \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/judiciary.house.gov\/sites\/evo-subsites\/republicans-judiciary.house.gov\/files\/evo-media-document\/shellenberger-testimony.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">censorship-industrial complex<\/a>\u201d is astonishing, and the government is controlling its activities.<\/p>\n<p>Indeed, in the closing remarks of the <a href=\"https:\/\/storage.courtlistener.com\/recap\/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520\/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.293.0_1.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">ruling<\/a>, Judge Doughty went even further, alluding to the dystopian regime depicted in Orwell\u2019s <em>1984<\/em>:<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote\">\n<p>Although this case is still relatively young, and at this stage the Court is only examining it in terms of Plaintiffs\u2019 likelihood of success on the merits, the evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario. 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 \u201cMinistry of Truth.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Much of what the government censored turned out to be true \u2014 the fact that <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2021\/12\/14\/forcing-people-into-covid-vaccines-ignores-important-scientific-information\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Covid shots<\/a> do not stop infection or transmission, the <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2023\/01\/11\/thanks-to-needless-covid-school-lockdowns-your-kids-lifetime-earning-potential-plummeted\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">collateral harms<\/a> caused by lockdowns and school closures, the lack of any randomized trial evidence for <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2022\/02\/09\/democrats-think-unmasking-children-is-good-only-when-they-do-it\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">masking children<\/a>, the <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2023\/04\/21\/ex-cia-official-blinken-prompted-infamous-intel-statement-calling-hunter-biden-laptop-russian-disinfo\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Hunter Biden laptop story<\/a>, and the <a href=\"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/2023\/01\/09\/what-spygate-tells-us-about-the-google-facebook-and-twitter-files\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Russia-collusion hoax<\/a>, among other things.<\/p>\n<p>However, government censorship is unconstitutional regardless of whether the information censored turns out, upon critical examination and debate, to be true or false. Government officials cannot arrogate the power to decide for all citizens what is true and what is false \u2014 as they are not God, they lack the omniscience to make those judgments. Their desire to assume this role only reveals their arrogant contempt for the intelligence and judgment of ordinary Americans.<\/p>\n<p>Students of history can readily grasp that government censorship is never about the disinterested pursuit of truth \u2014 it\u2019s always about accruing and maintaining power, about shielding the regime from criticism and silencing any opposition. After the court issued the injunction, we saw the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/the-censorship-empire-strikes-back-after-missouri-v-biden-free-speech-victory\/\" title=\"Censorship Empire retaliates post Missouri v. Biden free speech win.\">federal censorship empire immediately strike back<\/a>. Censorship apologists like Litman and Tribe rushed to the government\u2019s defense, and the government appealed the injunction, claiming \u201c<a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/documents\/738465b3-8221-4ba6-8a91-92171f73482b.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">irreparable harm<\/a>\u201d if their censorship activities are curtailed.<\/p>\n<p>Authoritarian regimes have always justified censorship in terms of protecting people from harm \u2014 people who apparently are incapable of discerning what is true and right on their own and without instructions from their rulers. One can ask: Would Tribe be defending the government\u2019s actions had the censorship targeted an issue he cared deeply about, say, affirmative action?<\/p>\n<p>The courts grind slowly, and this case will involve a long road through the federal appellate courts and byzantine procedural issues and arguments. Most observers think <em>Missouri v. Biden<\/em> will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<p>But however long it takes, we will continue to fight this battle until the government\u2019s censorship empire is dismantled and Americans regain their First Amendment right to free speech in the digital public square.<\/p>\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\">\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The federal court in Missouri v. Biden granted our request for a preliminary injunction against the government&#8217;s censorship regime. However, law professors Leah Litman and Laurence Tribe published a Slate article criticizing the court&#8217;s ruling. Their analysis, framed in partisan terms, showed a lack of understanding of the case.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2197,"featured_media":1970400,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[546],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1970399","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-federalist"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1970399","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2197"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1970399"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1970399\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1970400"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1970399"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1970399"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1970399"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}