On July 4, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty of Louisiana cited "substantial evidence" that the Biden administration "likely" violated the First Amendment free-speech rights of Americans during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to Doughty, 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 'Ministry of Truth.'"
Doughty's injunction (which was handed down in response to the 2022 lawsuit Missouri v. Biden) bars numerous federal agencies and officials – including the entire Department of Justice and FBI – from having any contact with social media companies for the purposes of manipulating protected speech.
On Thursday, the Biden administration appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans to review Doughty's landmark ruling in the case. The appeal claims the ruling could prevent the administration from "speaking on matters of public concern and working with social media companies on initiatives to prevent grave harm to the American people and our democratic processes."
AFN contacted Daniel Schmid, senior litigation counsel for Liberty Counsel. Schmid doesn't see how the Biden appeal is going to lead to a reversal because, as he argues, "the documents prove what the judge listed."
"What [the documents] say and what they prove is that the federal government engaged in a massive effort to censor conservative ideas and information on COVID-19, on the vaccines, on elections, and on the corruption of the Biden family," he explains.
Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, says it amounts to "government-coordinated censorship" at the highest levels of the federal government.
"Reading the factual findings of the disturbing pattern of censorship, one would assume this is China or a dystopian novel …. The Biden administration and government agencies intentionally and knowingly deceived the public," says Staver.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey – who along with Louisiana AG Jeff Landry asked the court in March to block the administration's "blatant coercion and collusion with Big Tech" – confirms Staver's accusations.
"[W]e've only begun to scratch the surface," Baily told Washington Watch on Wednesday, while describing "a vast censorship enterprise emanating from the very top levels of the White House …. We have every reason to believe that [enterprise has] now mushroomed and expanded and is covering … topics [other than COVID-19] that the government disagrees with.
"So, for instance, they can shut down speech related to questioning transgender issues, questioning global warming, or abortion," the Missouri AG added.
Gary Bauer, chairman of the Campaign for Working Families, tells AFN the appeal process likely will be lengthy and may not be resolved until it gets to the Supreme Court. "So, whether it is settled in time to have an impact on the [2024] election is up in the air at this point," Bauer concludes.
