Connect with us

Biden Administration

“Orwellian Ministry Of Truth” OUTSED – Judge BLOCKS Biden Officials, Agencies From Contacting Social Media Companies

Published

on

A federal judge in Louisiana has prohibited a number of federal departments and officials from communicating with social media companies in an effort to control content.

The preliminary injunction results from a lawsuit brought by the states of Louisiana and Missouri, as well as two prominent opponents of the Covid-19 lockdown regime, Martin Kulldorff of Harvard and Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford.

“If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” wrote US District Judge Terry A. Doughty. “The plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the government has used its power to silence the opposition.”

President Biden, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, the Treasury Department, the State Department, the US Election Assistance Commission, the FBI and the entire Justice Department, as well as the Department of Health and Human Services are among the numerous individuals and organizations who are subject to the injunction.

Social media censorship has affected Bhattacharya and Kulldorff, two of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration that criticized the lockdown regime. For example, the pair claims their censorship-triggering statements included assertions that “thinking everyone must be vaccinated is scientifically flawed,” questioning the value of masks, and stating that natural immunity is stronger than vaccine immunity. 

While Covid-19 censorship is the case’s main focus, it also involves the Justice Department’s attempts to stifle coverage of Hunter Biden’s “laptop from hell” in the lead-up to the 2020 election. To that charge, Doughty gave support.

The injunction provides significant support for claims that government officials conspired with social media companies to censor speech that contradicts official narratives, almost exclusively targeting conservative viewpoints.

The authors of the Great Barrington Declaration: Harvard’s Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Oxford’s Dr. Sunetra Gupta and Stanford’s Dr Jay Bhattacharya 

“The evidence thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario,” wrote Doughty in a 155-page ruling. “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 ‘Ministry of Truth’.”

“The White House defendants made it very clear to social-media companies what they wanted suppressed and what they wanted amplified,”

 wrote Doughty. “Faced with unrelenting pressure from the most powerful office in the world, the social-media companies apparently complied.”

Doughty quoted communications from administration officials to social media company employees, saying they represent “examples of coercion exercised by the White House defendants.” Here’s a small sampling:

  • “Cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately. Please remove this account immediately.”
  • To Facebook: “Are you guys fucking serious? I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today.” 
  • “This is a concern that is shared at the highest (and I mean highest) levels of the WH”
  • “Hey folks, wanted to flag the below tweet and am wondering if we can get moving on the process of having it removed. ASAP

The judge pointed out that the threats to alter the social media regulation system coincided with the badgering and that these threats carried extra weight because they were made while Democrats were in control of both the White House and Congress.

Federal District Judge Terry Doughty speaks at his 2017 confirmation hearing (YouTube)

The accusation and bureaucracy that surrounded the project support the claim that social media platforms and the government were working together. “Many emails between the White House and social-media companies referred to themselves as ‘partners.’ Twitter even sent the White House a ‘Partner Support Portal’ for expedited review of the White House’s requests,” wrote Doughty, a 2017 Trump nominee. 

A long list of agencies and people are now barred from contacting social media platforms with “the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”

“If there is a bedrock principal underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable,” wrote Doughty.

Biden Administration

Former Obama-Biden Advisor Claims “The First Amendment Is Out of Control,” Hinders Government Action

Published

on

In a controversial opinion piece published recently, Tim Wu, an advisor to both the Obama and Biden administrations, argued that the First Amendment is becoming a significant obstacle to effective governance. The essay, titled “The First Amendment is Out of Control,” has sparked widespread debate and criticism.

Wu’s argument centers on the assertion that the First Amendment, designed to protect free speech, is now being exploited by powerful entities, including Big Tech companies, to resist regulation and oversight. He cites recent Supreme Court rulings regarding Texas and Florida laws aimed at regulating social media platforms as examples of this exploitation.

According to Wu, the collaboration between the government and major social media platforms is often hindered by the First Amendment, which is used as a defense to protect free speech in digital public forums. He suggests that this constitutional protection is being misused to prevent necessary government action aimed at safeguarding citizens.

Critics, however, argue that Wu’s perspective misinterprets the fundamental purpose of the First Amendment. They contend that the amendment’s role is precisely to protect citizens from government overreach and censorship, ensuring that free speech remains a cornerstone of democracy. The idea that the First Amendment is an obstacle rather than a protector is seen by many as a dangerous and misguided interpretation.

Furthermore, Wu’s essay touches on the issue of banning platforms like TikTok and implementing age verification laws, such as California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code. He suggests that the First Amendment stands in the way of these actions, which he believes are necessary for national security and protecting minors online. Critics counter that these measures, if implemented, could set precedents for broader and potentially harmful censorship practices.

Wu’s reference to the First Amendment as a “suicide pact,” borrowing language from a 1949 dissenting opinion in the Terminiello v. City of Chicago case, underscores the dramatic tone of his argument. He suggests that the amendment, while intended to safeguard freedoms, can also be interpreted in ways that undermine societal safety and security.

In conclusion, Tim Wu’s essay has reignited the debate over the balance between free speech and governmental regulation. While Wu argues that the First Amendment’s current application hinders effective governance and protection of citizens, his critics maintain that the amendment is essential for safeguarding democratic principles and preventing government overreach. As this debate continues, the interpretation and application of the First Amendment remain at the forefront of discussions about free speech and public safety in the digital age.

SOURCE: NEW YORK TIMES

Continue Reading

Biden Administration

DHS and FBI Issue Warning About Large Fourth of July Events as ‘Attractive’ Targets for

Published

on

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a warning on Wednesday regarding potential threats to large Fourth of July celebrations. According to an internal bulletin obtained by ABC News, these events are considered “attractive” targets for lone offenders and small groups with malicious intentions.

The bulletin emphasizes the risk posed by individuals and small groups who might exploit the gatherings for terrorism or other harmful activities. The warning comes as the nation prepares for Independence Day festivities, which traditionally draw large crowds to public spaces.

The FBI and DHS are urging local law enforcement and event organizers to increase vigilance and security measures. The agencies highlight the importance of public awareness and cooperation, encouraging individuals to report any suspicious activities immediately.

Continue Reading

Biden Administration

Biden is 7 Times More Popular with Ukrainians than Trump, Poll Reveals

Published

on

In a recent poll conducted by The Counteroffensive/Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, President Joe Biden emerges as significantly more popular among Ukrainians compared to former President Donald Trump. This inaugural poll offers insights into Ukrainian sentiment towards American leadership during their ongoing conflict with Russia.

According to The Hill, a striking 46.7 percent of Ukrainian respondents expressed a preference for President Biden as the leader they believe would better support Ukraine’s war effort. In contrast, only 6.5 percent of those polled favored Trump in this regard.

Continue Reading

Trending