Federal Judge issues injunction against WH, govt "Ministry of Truth"

[jerryskids 6,557]

I see RLLD inserting this topic into other threads but I think it deserves it's own.  A federal judge has looked at the evidence in cases alleging the WH and government agencies worked with social media companies to censor conservative speech, likened it to Orwell's "Ministry of Truth," and issued an injunction against the government working with those companies pending the trial:

Quote

Happy birthday, America — and RIP to its newly erected “Ministry of Truth.” That term comes directly from federal Judge Terry Doughty in the Western District of Louisiana, who issued an injunction a couple of hours ago that takes direct aim at the government-media censorship complex. Concluding that plaintiffs in the lawsuit have a strong likelihood of proving that the US government suppressed dissent — and particularly conservative dissent — Doughty ordered the Biden administration and its executive agencies to cease any coordination with social-media companies:

 

 

The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition. Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed. It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature. 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.

Although this case is still relatively young, and at this stage the Court is only examining it in terms of Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, 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.”721

The Plaintiffs have presented substantial evidence in support of their claims that they were the victims of a far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign. This court finds that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment free speech claim against the Defendants. Therefore, a preliminary injunction should issue immediately against the Defendants as set out herein. The Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. No. 10] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

 

Emphasis mine. Missouri AG Andrew Bailey spells out the effects of the injunction:

 

The Washington Post complains that this could upend years’ worth of coordination between bureaucrats and would-be censors:

The injunction was a victory for the state attorneys general, who have accused the Biden administration of enabling a “sprawling federal ‘Censorship Enterprise’” to encourage tech giants to remove politically unfavorable viewpoints and speakers, and for conservatives who’ve accused the government of suppressing their speech. In their filings, the attorneys general alleged the actions amount to “the most egregious violations of the First Amendment in the history of the United States of America.”

The judge, Terry A. Doughty, has yet to make a final ruling in the case, but in the injunction, he wrote that the Republican attorneys general “have produced evidence of a massive effort by Defendants, from the White House to federal agencies, to suppress speech based on its content.”

The ruling could have critical implications for tech companies, which regularly communicate with government officials, especially during elections and emergencies, such as the coronavirus pandemic.

 

Well, boo frickin’ hoo. The First Amendment makes it patently clear that government has no business regulating and censoring public debate and dissent. That’s one of the key values and liberties we celebrate today, in fact.

We’ll likely have more on this tomorrow. Even though this is a holiday, the news is too good not to share: the Big Brother Ministry of Truth has been derailed, at least temporarily.

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2023/07/04/auto-draft-119-n562425

A link to the actual injunction is in that link.  In that injunction Doughty addresses the defense of "we just suggested things, we didn't MAKE them do it!":

Quote

The Defendants further argue they only made requests to the social-media companies, and that the decision to modify or suppress content was each social-media company’s independent decision. However, when a state has so involved itself in the private party’s conduct, it cannot claim the conduct occurred as a result of private choice, even if the private party would have acted independently. Peterson v. City of Greenville, 373 U.S. 244, 247–248 (1963).  

Therefore, the question is not what decision the social-media company would have made, but whether the Government “so involved itself in the private party’s conduct” that the decision is essentially that of the Government. As exhaustedly listed above, Defendants “significantly encouraged” the social-media companies to such extent that the decision should be deemed to be the decisions of the Government. The White House Defendants and the Surgeon General Defendants additionally engaged in coercion of social-media companies to such extent that the decisions of the social-media companies should be deemed that of the Government. It simply makes no difference what decision the social-media companies would have made independently of government involvement, where the evidence demonstrates the wide-scale involvement seen here. 

This could be quite bigly.

[RLLD 4,143]

Maybe.

Lets look at it from all sides.  First and foremost, any judge that makes a decision that is line with the constitution but not with liberal doctrine should expect to be castigated/ So lets just await the ad hominen attacks and enjoy the little toddler temper tantrums.

Second, while we already knew this to be true, now we have a court ruling on it....and they is an entirely other thing.  This is a direct threat to the Democrat-controlled propoganda machine, and they will not take this lightly.  Liberal outcomes are profoundly negative so they rely heavily on lies, and if they cannot lie through social media they will see this as a lethal threat to them.

We should expect the reactions to be ...... enthusiastically threatening to constiutional authority.  Which is NOT good.  They still control almost all of media, and the DOJ as well as other impactful agencies.  People standing up to them WILL be harmed.

[jerryskids 6,557]

9 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Maybe.

Lets look at it from all sides.  First and foremost, any judge that makes a decision that is line with the constitution but not with liberal doctrine should expect to be castigated/ So lets just await the ad hominen attacks and enjoy the little toddler temper tantrums.

Second, while we already knew this to be true, now we have a court ruling on it....and they is an entirely other thing.  This is a direct threat to the Democrat-controlled propoganda machine, and they will not take this lightly.  Liberal outcomes are profoundly negative so they rely heavily on lies, and if they cannot lie through social media they will see this as a lethal threat to them.

We should expect the reactions to be ...... enthusiastically threatening to constiutional authority.  Which is NOT good.  They still control almost all of media, and the DOJ as well as other impactful agencies.  People standing up to them WILL be harmed.

Funny you mention the ad hominem; I almost added something to the effect of "expect the MSM to dig into this judge's past and find out he once asked a girl out who said no, so he is a rapist$#@!"

But I decided to save that for a later discussion.  

Anyway, I'll be looking forward to the MSM responses as they come out today, to tell us why we are supposed to disagree with this.   

[RLLD 4,143]

30 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Funny you mention the ad hominem; I almost added something to the effect of "expect the MSM to dig into this judge's past and find out he once asked a girl out who said no, so he is a rapist$#@!"

But I decided to save that for a later discussion.  

Anyway, I'll be looking forward to the MSM responses as they come out today, to tell us why we are supposed to disagree with this.   

Right.  We know the tactics. The ruling cannot be refuted, so the person must be attacked. Now, we also have to recognize the projection here.  Liberals do not think in terms of constituionality, but instead on their perceptions of right and wrong, not even just or unjust.

So.....because they think in this manner they often assume everyone else does as well.  This is evident when you hear the term "Trump-appointed judge". The implication being that this judge cannot be trusted because of the President in power when they were appointed. Now of course this will only ever be used when a judge violates the liberal doctrine.

What should we take from this? Liberals only ever appoint activists, not people dedicated to the constituion, justice or this nation. 

[lickin_starfish 1,889]

But people can literally die if someone says dISiNfeRmAysHuN, hurr duurr. That's why we need to stop people from saying stuff.

[RLLD 4,143]

2 minutes ago, lickin_starfish said:

But people can literally die if someone says dISiNfeRmAysHuN, hurr duurr. That's why we need to stop people from saying stuff.

If we can agree that disinformation does exist, then I think we start from a solid base that people anywhere can get behind.

It has been around likely since the emergence of life. Even animals do it. Now, what has arisen is that for humans access to information has become easier and with it manipulation has also become easier. 

The best defense against it.....simple common sense.....

[Hardcore troubadour 14,919]

Winning 

[jerryskids 6,557]

On 7/5/2023 at 8:03 AM, RLLD said:

Maybe.

Lets look at it from all sides.  First and foremost, any judge that makes a decision that is line with the constitution but not with liberal doctrine should expect to be castigated/ So lets just await the ad hominen attacks and enjoy the little toddler temper tantrums.

Second, while we already knew this to be true, now we have a court ruling on it....and they is an entirely other thing.  This is a direct threat to the Democrat-controlled propoganda machine, and they will not take this lightly.  Liberal outcomes are profoundly negative so they rely heavily on lies, and if they cannot lie through social media they will see this as a lethal threat to them.

We should expect the reactions to be ...... enthusiastically threatening to constiutional authority.  Which is NOT good.  They still control almost all of media, and the DOJ as well as other impactful agencies.  People standing up to them WILL be harmed.

You asked and the NYT delivered.  Not only delivered, but found one of the dumbest attacks ever.  

 

 

[RLLD 4,143]

Well that is about what I would expect.  Some effort to impugne the person for daring to allow a challenge to Democrat power.

[paulinstl 296]

Just spit balling here, does a "Ministry Of Truth" include state governments legislating which books are and are not allowed in schools or libraries, and what about them legislating what advice/info people can get from health care workers? Looks like a slippery slope, and people should take a deep look at censorship at all levels of government.

[seafoam1 2,799]

13 minutes ago, paulinstl said:

Just spit balling here, does a "Ministry Of Truth" include state governments legislating which books are and are not allowed in schools or libraries, and what about them legislating what advice/info people can get from health care workers? Looks like a slippery slope, and people should take a deep look at censorship at all levels of government.

#1 on the list is no surprise. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/pictures/murder-map-deadliest-u-s-cities/

[jonmx 2,424]

20 minutes ago, paulinstl said:

Just spit balling here, does a "Ministry Of Truth" include state governments legislating which books are and are not allowed in schools or libraries, and what about them legislating what advice/info people can get from health care workers? Looks like a slippery slope, and people should take a deep look at censorship at all levels of government.

God I hate such stupid arguements.  Schools are for educating children.  They are not public forums for free speech.  Complete buffoonery in a lame attempt to justify left-wing fascist censorship. 

[jonmx 2,424]

Finally a sane judge calling out these Orwellian tactics thst have no place in the United States of America.   Government Censorship is a far far far far far more serious threat to Democracy than the mostly peaceful protest of January 6th.  And the corporate bastards in big tech with their monopolistic practices need to be broken into a thousand pieces and rot in hell.  

[Hardcore troubadour 14,919]

1 hour ago, paulinstl said:

Just spit balling here, does a "Ministry Of Truth" include state governments legislating which books are and are not allowed in schools or libraries, and what about them legislating what advice/info people can get from health care workers? Looks like a slippery slope, and people should take a deep look at censorship at all levels of government.

So states deciding what books are in schools is something new? 

[jerryskids 6,557]

1 hour ago, paulinstl said:

Just spit balling here, does a "Ministry Of Truth" include state governments legislating which books are and are not allowed in schools or libraries, and what about them legislating what advice/info people can get from health care workers? Looks like a slippery slope, and people should take a deep look at censorship at all levels of government.

Is this marginal attempt at a whataboutism your way of saying you are disappointed to learn that the federal government behaved the exactly the Orwellian fashion that we've been saying all along here?  

[paulinstl 296]

18 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Is this marginal attempt at a whataboutism your way of saying you are disappointed to learn that the federal government behaved the exactly the Orwellian fashion that we've been saying all along here?  

Nope, I'm asking if there is a difference between govt putting rules on free speech and govt putting rules on school subjects, library books and doctor consults.

[seafoam1 2,799]

11 minutes ago, paulinstl said:

Nope, I'm asking if there is a difference between govt putting rules on free speech and govt putting rules on school subjects, library books and doctor consults.

Another liberal who wants to groom children into sexually confused kids. Fock this guy. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,919]

14 minutes ago, paulinstl said:

Nope, I'm asking if there is a difference between govt putting rules on free speech and govt putting rules on school subjects, library books and doctor consults.

Who do you think has been making rules on school subjects, in the government controlled schools? 

[Patented Phil 1,469]

Silence from the Left-Tards.  Pooosays.

[jerryskids 6,557]

1 hour ago, paulinstl said:

Nope, I'm asking if there is a difference between govt putting rules on free speech and govt putting rules on school subjects, library books and doctor consults.

Yes Paul, there is a difference between censoring public discussion and determining the curriculum of a public school.  HTH

[Dizkneelande 1,085]

16 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Yes Paul, there is a difference between censoring public discussion and determining the curriculum of a public school.  HTH

He’s another dope that doesn’t seem to like our federalist system and thinks fascism is cool. If he wants his kids to have access to books about boys sucking each other he can either move to California or, try to convince enough people in his state to vote in leftists.

[Dizkneelande 1,085]

 

[Baker Boy 1,687]

Who else had a ‘ministry of truth”…Hitler…Goebbels…Stalin

[paulinstl 296]

18 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Yes Paul, there is a difference between censoring public discussion and determining the curriculum of a public school.  HTH

What about states legislating what healthcare givers can and can't say to patients? Government has no place in the Doctor's office.

 

Like I said, it's a complicated issue. There needs to be a balance between government censorship on any level, and there also has to be a way to prevent dangerous disinformation and dangerous information from being published. 

[Dizkneelande 1,085]

2 minutes ago, paulinstl said:

What about states legislating what healthcare givers can and can't say to patients? Government has no place in the Doctor's office.

 

Like I said, it's a complicated issue. There needs to be a balance between government censorship on any level, and there also has to be a way to prevent dangerous disinformation and dangerous information from being published. 

Once again, you can move to Massachusetts or vote in radical leftists who will allow doctors to mutilate children.

[Dizkneelande 1,085]

Everything that goes against the left’s perverse ideology is labeled disinformation.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,828]

16 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

Everything that goes against the left’s perverse ideology is labeled disinformation.

It's getting to the point where it's going to end up with armed conflict.  Another Civil War, with the left (the South) and the right (the North).  Liberalism is a cancer - like the Communism it strives to be - and must be eradicated.

[jerryskids 6,557]

29 minutes ago, paulinstl said:

What about states legislating what healthcare givers can and can't say to patients? Government has no place in the Doctor's office.

 

Like I said, it's a complicated issue. There needs to be a balance between government censorship on any level, and there also has to be a way to prevent dangerous disinformation and dangerous information from being published. 

What is the health care legislation to which you reference?

[Dizkneelande 1,085]

54 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

What is the health care legislation to which you reference?

Ones that don’t allow abortion at 9 months of pregnancy and giving puberty blockers to 11 year olds.

[Dizkneelande 1,085]

1 hour ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

It's getting to the point where it's going to end up with armed conflict.  Another Civil War, with the left (the South) and the right (the North).  Liberalism is a cancer - like the Communism it strives to be - and must be eradicated.

We’re going to continue to self separate (red states getting redder and blue states getting bluer) then the blue states will implode because Dem pols are nothing more than 2bit grifters and the federal government will bail them out. That’s when the sh!t will hit the fan.

[5-Points 3,387]

8 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

We’re going to continue to self separate (red states getting redder and blue states getting bluer) then the blue states will implode because Dem pols are nothing more than 2bit grifters and the federal government will bail them out. That’s when the sh!t will hit the fan.

Red states are going to have to establish their own immigration policies in order for this to happen.

Because, unfortunately, the very people who focked up California are relocating to Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Florida and a bunch of other states, because they rooned the state they were in previously by voting for idiotic people and policies. But they'll continue voting for the same people and policies they fled from after it made life unbearable the first time and, eventually, roon the state they left for. 

If red states want to stay red, they can't allow blue voters to relocate there. Unfortunately, it isn't Constitutional to do so. 

There's only one way out of this mess at this point. We clearly have two halves of a population who want to live in different countries. An amicable separation would be preferable but the alternative is always on the table. Just as the founders intended. 

 

 

 

[dogcows 1,030]

41 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Red states are going to have to establish their own immigration policies in order for this to happen.

You’re correct on the constitution. Immigration policy comes from the federal government. This was challenged by Arizona in 2012 and they lost at the Supreme Court. Article I of the Constitution, Section 8 says Congress has the power to establish “an Uniform rule of naturalization.”

I thought right-wingers loved the Constitution, but here you are bemoaning it because it doesn’t let “red” states set their own immigration policies. You want another civil war? Grow up, or we will put you at the kids’ table with Justin Charge and chrome dome.

[dogcows 1,030]

I was reading about this ruling as well. Here is an interview with Louisiana’s solicitor general and a U of Chicago law professor. Say what you will about PBS, but I thought this interview was fair, and gives an idea of where this might go.

I think this judge will be overruled for one reason: they need evidence of actual threats or coercion. The bar to get over to block the government from speaking is very high. Proving threat or coercion is necessary, and they’re highly unlikely to meet that burden of proof.

[Dizkneelande 1,085]

 

[lickin_starfish 1,889]

https://rumble.com/v2yw048-cramersez-exposes-the-most-dangerous-thing-happening-in-our-country-this-we.html

[Dizkneelande 1,085]

From above this is nuts. Dogcows the fascist is OK with this. 

The judge asked the gov a question. “Please tell me if the statements I’m about to say are protected free speech” 

1. The COVID-19 vaccines don’t work. 
2. The 2020 election was stolen 
3. Gas prices are high because of Joe Biden 

And several more. 

In each case the government was UNABLE TO SAY that the statement was protected. The answer was “it depends who is saying it” and when pressed further, the excuse was that even if it’s an American they could be being compensated by a foreign government and be guilty of FARA violations. 

[5-Points 3,387]

54 minutes ago, dogcows said:

You’re correct on the constitution. Immigration policy comes from the federal government. This was challenged by Arizona in 2012 and they lost at the Supreme Court. Article I of the Constitution, Section 8 says Congress has the power to establish “an Uniform rule of naturalization.”

I thought right-wingers loved the Constitution, but here you are bemoaning it because it doesn’t let “red” states set their own immigration policies. You want another civil war? Grow up, or we will put you at the kids’ table with Justin Charge and chrome dome.

Apparently you can't read. Guess we'll have to put you at the retarded table. Oh, wait, you're already there. Carry on. 

[League Champion 1,896]

1 hour ago, dogcows said:

Say what you will about PBS, but I thought this interview was fair,

PBS fair? What's more Liberal than having a dead man painting on TV for 23.5 hours a day? 

It doesn't get any Libbier than that. 

[dogcows 1,030]

1 hour ago, Dizkneelande said:

From above this is nuts. Dogcows the fascist is OK with this. 

The judge asked the gov a question. “Please tell me if the statements I’m about to say are protected free speech” 

1. The COVID-19 vaccines don’t work. 
2. The 2020 election was stolen 
3. Gas prices are high because of Joe Biden 

And several more. 

In each case the government was UNABLE TO SAY that the statement was protected. The answer was “it depends who is saying it” and when pressed further, the excuse was that even if it’s an American they could be being compensated by a foreign government and be guilty of FARA violations. 

That list is a distraction from the ultimate question in this case: Were social media companies threatened or coerced into publishing or taking down posts? If the answer to that is no, then none of the rest matters. If it is yes, a takedown was compelled, then one must answer the question: was the speech protected or not?

There is no DIRECT evidence of threats or coercion so far. But the trial will be to make that determination. This injunction was a bad move by the judge, if you think about it. Now, if he rules for the plaintiff, there will be grounds of bias for the appeal. There is no emergency, so the judge would have been wise to wait. Wisdom, a trait formerly associated with judges, seems to be in very short supply among them these days.

[dogcows 1,030]

1 hour ago, 5-Points said:

Apparently you can't read. Guess we'll have to put you at the retarded table. Oh, wait, you're already there. Carry on. 

You said you want a peaceful secession, but would resort to civil war if that didn’t work, right? Neither are anywhere near reality. So eat your cheerios.