18<\/div>SHARES<\/span><\/div>

<\/span>Facebook<\/span><\/a><\/span>Twitter<\/span><\/a>

By Wednesday, Missouri v. Biden<\/em> plaintiffs must respond in \u2062the Supreme \u2062Court to \u2062Biden administration claims that federal bureaucrats should get to filter everything Americans say via the internet for the sake\u200d of \u201cnational security.\u201d\u200b <\/p>\n

On Sept. 14, the \u2064Department of Justice (DOJ) made an emergency \u200cSupreme Court appeal\u2063 to avoid lower court injunctions preventing the White House \u2062and federal\u200b agencies including the FBI from \u2063telling internet speech monopolies which keywords, posts, and accounts to\u2064 suffocate. The \u2063court granted the appeal the same day, pausing lower-court\u2064 injunctions \u2062stopping the federal government from holding a gun to\u200c internet monopolies\u2019 heads to tell them what \u2062ideas to choke from the online public \u200bsquare.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The Biden administration didn\u2019t contest any \u200bof the more than 20,000 pages<\/a> of \u200bcourt documents showing essentially every major \u200dfederal agency pressuring social media monopolies<\/a> to take down ideas powerful Democrats don\u2019t \u200dlike or \u2064face federal lawsuits, investigations, and the\u2063 removal of their\u200b monopoly powers.<\/p>\n
Instead, it\u200c argued<\/a> that\u200d obeying the \u2063First \u200dAmendment \u201cimposed unprecedented limits on the ability of the \u200dPresident\u2019s \u200cclosest aides to use the \u200dbully \u2064pulpit to address matters \u200cof public concern, on the FBI\u2019s ability\u200d to address\u2063 threats to the Nation\u2019s security, and on the CDC\u2019s ability to relay public health information at \u200bplatforms\u2019 request.\u201d <\/p>\n
Every President \u2064But Biden Could \u2062Respect \u200dSpeech and Still Fight \u200dWars<\/h2>\n
As independent reporter Matt\u2062 Taibbi \u200d noted <\/a>Friday, \u2064the position of Biden\u2019s Department of Justice is essentially that the First \u2063Amendment \u200cendangers national\u2062 security: \u201conly government action against protected free \u200cspeech<\/em> remained\u2063 barred by this\u2063 injunction. The Biden administration just \u2062told the world \u2062\u2018grave and irreparable harm\u2019 would\u2064 result from \u200bsuch limitations.\u201d <\/p>\n
That would be\u200c news to Presidents Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, \u2062and Reagan, \u2063to name a few wartime presidents who were limited\u2063 by that same Bill of Rights the\u200c Biden administration can\u2019t seem\u200b to fathom how \u200dto function within. If shutting down Americans\u2019 ideas online is necessary to protect national\u200c security, government can do \u2064literally anything <\/em>in the name of national security. This\u2063 kind of argument is in the same category as New Mexico\u2019s governor claiming \u200bthat because she declared a public emergency, people don\u2019t get Second\u200b Amendment rights.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
Taibbi also notes that the DOJ flat-out lies to \u2063the Supreme \u200dCourt, apparently attempting to obfuscate the law and \u2062the government\u2019s constitutional duties with hysterical falsehoods.<\/p>\n
\n
In oral \u2064arguments\u200c in August, the government complained \u200dabout\u200c activities they \u2064claimed \u2064were\u2062 threatened, despite the fact that those activities \u2014 \u2062communications about\u200d \u2018criminal activity or \u200ccriminal conspiracies\u2019 or posts that \u2018threaten the public safety\u2019\u2064 \u2014 were exempted by [Judge Terry] Doughty\u2019s injunction<\/a>. This argument visibly irritated appelate judges. In this application \u200bnow, they\u2019re\u2064 complaining to Supreme\u2064 Court judges about things they\u2019re \u200dalready allowed to do.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Lying to courts and the \u200cpublic seems to\u2063 be a part of the administration\u2019s strategy in this case. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, \u2064part of the plaintiffs\u2019 legal team in Missouri v. Biden<\/em>, pointed out \u200cthe irony in an interview last week<\/a> with Tracy Beanz: \u201cIt\u2019s dripping with \u2064irony that the people who claim to \u200dbe \u2064protecting\u2064 us from misinformation are \u2062promulgating\u2064 misinformation. I mean, that\u200b speaks to \u200dthe\u200d dystopian, \u2064Orwellian nature of this vast censorship enterprise<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n
Lawsuit\u200d documents found \u2063federal officials not just muting specific ideas\u200b and persons online but\u2063 also influencing platforms\u2019 \u2063algorithms and content \u200bmoderation policies<\/a>. That means anyone using Facebook,\u200d Google, YouTube, X (formerly Twitter), LinkedIn, TikTok, Instagram,\u2062 and the like today is limited in his or her communication by government officials\u2019 behind-the-scenes pressure. \u2064Even \u2062if the Supreme Court rules for the plaintiffs, that will continue.<\/p>\n
Government\u2062 Doesn\u2019t Have Speech Rights; Citizens Do<\/h2>\n
The Biden DOJ\u2019s \u200cSupreme Court\u2062 application claims<\/a> \u2063 that stopping government officials from censoring Americans \u2062online restricts officials\u2019 \u2064freedom of speech. \u200bThis is ridiculous, because government officials have no freedom of\u200d speech\u2064 in their \u200cofficial capacities<\/em>. Their official acts are constrained by multiple things, chief of which is the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution bans the federal\u2062 government \u2014 acting \u2064through its multitudinous employees \u2014 from\u200d \u201cabridging\u2062 the freedom of speech.\u201d <\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
The \u2062president may of course \u200buse the bully pulpit,\u200c but\u200b he may not actually bully<\/em> \u2064Americans. He cannot\u2062 threaten companies or individuals with government harm\u200b if they disagree \u2064with him. He can speak, but he cannot \u200ccompel. If his or any other government employees\u2019\u200d speech pressures <\/em>companies or\u2063 individuals,\u200d it violates the \u2063Constitution.<\/p>\n
This is in fact one of the \u200dreasons the First Amendment exists: to protect Americans from\u200c the \u2064abuse of government power<\/em>. There\u200d is a massive power imbalance\u200d between the\u200c government and the average\u2064 citizen \u2014 even between the government and powerful companies! \u2014 and the First Amendment exists to \u2064help tip that balance \u200dtoward the individual. It secures the \u2062rights of citizens against <\/em>government \u200cofficials, not\u2063 vice versa. <\/p>\n
The Biden administration has this so far backward that one wonders whether they\u2019re making this Con\u200b Law 101\u200d mistake on purpose to confuse the public, if not the\u200c court.<\/p>\n
Anger\u200c a Bureaucrat,\u200b Lose Everything<\/h2>\n
Given the size\u200c of the federal government and its many means of\u2062 making life miserable for \u2062those whose use of their freedoms conflicts \u200dwith\u2062 bureaucrats\u2019 \u200ddesires, in many cases a government official merely speaking in his official capacity carries an implied threat.\u2063 Court precedents have recognized this. <\/p>\n
Not only\u2062 that, but\u200c throughout the emails and texts this case surfaced in discovery \u200bis \u200bnot \u200bjust implied \u200dbut direct coercion. The president literally claimed<\/a> social media\u2063 companies\u2019 initial refusal to implement all <\/em>his\u200b demanded speech codes\u200c was \u201ckilling people.\u201d He \u200dthreatened to hold Mark Zuckerberg criminally liable. \u2063 <\/p>\n
The White House press secretary threatened to erase the companies\u2019 entire \u200bbusiness model and cost them billions by \u201crevisiting Section 230.\u201d Myriad emails \u2063show \u2064the companies\u2019 leaders experienced federal demands as \u2062coercion. <\/p>\n
People aren\u2019t stupid. They \u2064see thousands of prominent examples of government \u200cflexing its \u200cpower over noncompliant individuals, like \u2062the Federal Trade Commission \u200c deciding <\/a>to investigate Elon Musk for a tweet after he bought Twitter and then\u2064 more recently the Justice Department \u2062 going after<\/a> another of his companies for allegedly\u2062 not \u200dhiring \u200benough foreigners. Those are ridiculous lawfare exercises, \u2062and they will cost Musk millions.<\/p>\n
The Administrative State Supercharges \u2064Government\u2019s Coercive Power<\/h2>\n
Smart\u2063 people and \u2063companies without the millions to \u2064withstand\u2062 unhinged bureaucrats\u2019 \u200bfury \u2014 or the desire to waste \u200dmillions on such an effort \u2014 keep their\u200c heads down \u2063and their mouths\u2064 shut. One could \u200dmention many more shock-and-awe efforts \u200cby federal \u200cagencies that \u2064have similar effects. \u2062 <\/p>\n
Those\u2064 include the FBI\u2019s surveillance of conservative\u200b Christians \u2014 about which its director lied\u200d to\u2064 Congress<\/em> \u2014 \u2062and its raids\u2063 on peaceful pro-lifers in front of their kids. They also include the U.S. Department\u200b of Education opening a \u201ccivil\u200c rights\u201d investigation\u200d into journalist Chris Rufo in August \u2064for allegedly\u2063 using<\/a> an accurate pronoun.<\/p>\n
There\u200c are\u2063 more than 185,000\u2064 pages <\/a>in the Federal Register. It\u2019s impossible <\/a>for\u200b normal Americans\u200b to comply\u200d with effective \u2062laws that voluminous. That makes every American guilty before being proven innocent at great expense, a de \u2064facto criminal whose crimes are just waiting to be found by a motivated government official. Bureaucrats have the \u2062power<\/a> to unilaterally charge, investigate, prosecute, and declare guilty anyone they\u200d decide to target, all before\u2063 the matter reaches a court of law. <\/p>\n
This gives federal officials coercion power \u2062simply through \u200c\u201casking\u201d for something. A person with the power to ruin your \u200blife<\/a> \u2064because \u2062you \u200dmade \u200dsome\u2064 non-PC remark a bureaucrat\u200b thinks could violate Title VII\u200c is asking\u200b for\u200b a favor. You\u2063 wouldn\u2019t \u2063want him to get mad\u2063 and start looking for\u200c all the felonies<\/a> and thought\u200d crimes you\u2019re surely guilty of, would you?\u2063 Better\u200b to just\u2064 comply. <\/p>\n
My Thoughts Don\u2019t Belong to the Government<\/h2>\n
This is how Democrats are using the incredible power of government to silence their \u200cpolitical opponents. So if we needed strong, large, nearly unlimited\u2062 First Amendment protections centuries before <\/em>we accrued a massive\u200b government able to \u200ccrucify anyone\u2063 it sets its\u200c sights on over something\u2064 as little as a\u2064 non-PC opinion, today\u2019s\u2064 Americans need huge speech protections even more<\/em> now that our government has so much more power than when the \u200dFirst Amendment was enacted.<\/p>\n
Imagine if Donald Trump had used his presidential power to erase from the \u200cinternet claims the 2020 election was fair and accurately tabulated. Suppose his\u2062 justifications for this were the same as the Biden administration\u2019s are now: \u200bprotecting the nation\u2019s \u201ccognitive infrastructure,\u201d \u201cnational security,\u201d and \u201celection integrity\u201d from \u201cforeign interference,\u201d \u201cmisinformation,\u201d \u200b\u201cdisinformation,\u201d and \u201cmalinformation.\u201d \u2064 <\/p>\n
Not\u200d only \u200cwould every single\u200d legacy\u200d news corporation lose their lids over this kind\u200b of \u2063totalitarian behavior, but Trump \u2063would \u2063have been sued to the moon \u200cand back and \u200clost in every court at least \u200das fast as his 2020 \u200delection cases were tossed. Biden deserves\u200d no less from not just the Supreme Court, but from\u200b every American and institution in this country. <\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
\t\t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n
rnrn <\/p>\n
How does the emergency appeal made by the Department \u2064of Justice in this case \u200bimpact the balance between national security and protecting free speech online<\/a>?<\/h2>\n
Title: Missouri \u2062v. Biden: A Battle for Free Speech and National Security<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/p>\n
In a case known as Missouri v. Biden, the Biden \u200dadministration faces\u200d a \u200dcritical decision on the balance between national security and the \u2063protection of free speech online. The plaintiffs in the case must\u2064 respond to the administration’s claims that federal bureaucrats should have the authority to \u2064filter internet\u200c speech for the sake of national security. This article explores the implications of this \u2063case and the potential consequences it may have on Americans’ freedom of\u200b expression.<\/p>\n
The Emergence of an Emergency\u200d Appeal<\/p>\n
On September 14th, the Department of Justice (DOJ) made an emergency appeal to \u200dthe Supreme\u2063 Court to avoid lower \u2063court injunctions. These injunctions prevented federal agencies such as the White House and the FBI from instructing internet speech monopolies on which keywords, posts, and accounts to suffocate. The Supreme Court granted the appeal on the same\u2062 day, \u2064effectively pausing the lower court’s injunctions.<\/p>\n
Contesting the Fundamental Right to Free Speech<\/p>\n
Surprisingly, the Biden administration did not challenge\u200b the substantial evidence of government pressure on social media platforms<\/a> to suppress certain ideas, as revealed in the over 20,000 pages of court documents. Instead<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
By Wednesday, Missouri v. Biden plaintiffs must counter Biden administration’s argument in the Supreme Court. The administration claims that federal bureaucrats should have the authority to monitor all online speech for “national security.” On Sept. 14, the DOJ urgently appealed to the Supreme Court to avoid injunctions imposed by lower courts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":519,"featured_media":2035682,"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-2035681","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\/2035681","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\/519"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2035681"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2035681\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2035682"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2035681"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2035681"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2035681"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}