Prediction: Full panel of federal judges could rip Biden for censoring political opponents

Prediction: Full panel of federal judges could rip Biden for censoring political opponents

Prediction: Full panel of federal judges could rip Biden for censoring political opponents

After it got hammered by a federal judge for colluding with Big Tech to censor unwanted opinions, the Biden administration plans to appeal that lower court ruling. A conservative journalist predicts the ruling will be upheld.

The case, Missouri v. Biden, was brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana in an effort to punish the federal government for censoring free speech on social media.

Judge Terry A. Doughty, of Louisiana’s Western District, found the government did, in fact, suppress free speech that was conservative in nature.

"It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature," the judge wrote. "This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech. American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country."

The case now moves to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Josh Hammer, a show host and syndicated columnist, believes there’s a good chance the Fifth Circuit will uphold the opinion that found the government’s communication with social media sites like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and others was too Orwellian to remain intact.

“It’s a right-of-center court so I tend to be cautiously optimistic about this one,” Hammer, an editor-at-large at Newsweek, said on American Family Radio Tuesday.

The administration will sue for a stay that will allow it to continue partnering with social media websites until the Fifth Circuit issues a ruling.

Hammer told show host Jenna Ellis the "high-profile" case is so significant the entire court could choose to hear the case rather than a randomly selected panel of three of its 17 judges.

“It's the kind of case that could make it kind of a so-called ‘en banc’ rehearing, where the full court agrees to rehear it," Hammer, an attorney, said. "In that case, you kind of have to like our odds - the odds on the side of sanity - at least on a court like that. It is still a long and winding road." 

The government-Big Tech partnership was birthed by a desire to remove “misinformation” regarding COVID-19 that was being posted and circulated on social media sites.

In the summer of 2021, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters about a “new campaign” to combat virus misinformation. It was immediately questioned by conservative news outlets. A story by The Daily Caller blasted "Big Brother Biden," a reference to George Orwell's novel 1984.

Psaki said the campaign primarily involved asking social media companies to be more active in policing misinformation and to report their results publicly.

Soon, however, the scope of the mission widened.

In his 155-page ruling, Doughty wrote that opposition to the COVID-19 lab leak theory, statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true, opposition to President Biden’s policies and opposition to the policies of government officials currently in power, were all suppressed at the request of the Biden administration. 

Hammer said the administration does not contest that the information it seeks to suppress is protected by the First Amendment yet it will continue with an appeal.

“It’s really a vindication for myself and others," Hammer said, "who have been sounding the alarm for years now on how the Democratic Party, and the ruling class in general, has tried to use government power to effectively co-opt the private sector, the Big Tech companies more than anyone else, to do their bidding."