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

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 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,”

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.

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.