A Shocking Revelation: New Lawsuit Shows Biden Administration, Democrats CAUGHT in Major Censorship Scandal

The attorney generals of Missouri and Louisiana, Andrew Bailey (R) and Jeffrey Martin Landry (R), alongside other plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief alongside a 364 paged findings of fact citing testimonies and internal communications of former and current officials in the Federal Bureau of Investigation and various federal departments. According to Just The News, such testimonials and internal communications documents cases where Congressional Democrats and White House officials induced social media platforms to censor dissenting views on COVID-19, elections, and Hunter Biden going so far as to threaten the platforms with “a hidden subsidy worth billions of dollars.”

A senior plaintiff litigation counsel described the lawsuit as containing “the most comprehensive description linked to testimony and evidence of the federal government’s massive pressure and control of social media companies to remove information, even true information that the government did not like, from the public square.”

Attorney General Andrew Bailey stated the lawsuit simply asked: “the court to block the Biden administration from coercing and colluding with social media companies to censor free speech.” He professed that “[a]fter receiving thousands of internal federal documents, it is clear that the White House’s censorship enterprise is vast and unconstitutional.” 

He further vowed that “As Attorney General, I will protect the Constitution, which includes defending the fundamental right to free speech enshrined in the First Amendment. The First Amendment is the cornerstone of our republic because the founders understood that the remedy to false speech has always been counter speech, not government censorship.”

The Missouri lawyer pitched the case as “the most important free speech lawsuit in a generation, as we highlight more than 1,400 facts showing the Biden Administration’s blatant coercion and collusion with Big Tech social media companies to suppress speech it disagrees with.”

He then detailed the shocking facts found in the lawsuit. “Some of the facts in our filing include: Fauci’s involvement in laundering lies into medical journals in an attempt to bury the lab-leak theory (to save himself from embarrassment given that he had been involved in gain-of-function research on coronaviruses). White House officials like Rob Flaherty, Andrew Slavitt, and Jennifer Psaki have engaged in a relentless pressure campaign, both in public and in private, to coerce platforms into censoring disfavored viewpoints on social media” said Mr. Bailey.

He continued noting that “Surgeon General Murthy and his staff coordinate closely with the White House in this pressure campaign, causing social-media platforms to scramble and assure federal officials that “we hear your call to do more” to censor disfavored viewpoints. The CDC flags specific social-media posts for censorship, organizes “BOLO” (“Be On the Lookout”) meetings to tell platforms what should be censored, and serves as the definitive fact-checker with final authority to dictate exactly what speech will be removed from social media.”

SENATOR RAND PAUL HAS A STRONG MESSAGE FOR ANTHONY FAUCI FOLLOWING COVID-19 ‘COVER-UP’

He further exposed that “[t]he FBI deliberately planted false information about “hack-and-leak” operations to deceive social-media platforms into censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story. The FBI, CISA, and the GEC collude with social-media platforms in hundreds of meetings about misinformation, and those agencies repeatedly flag huge quantities of First Amendment-protected speech to compliant platforms for censorship.”

These are just some of the items that Mr. Bailey tweeted about before vowing  that he “will not rest until the court blocks unelected federal bureaucrats from violating our constitutional right to free and open debate.”

Advocates against (direct or indirect) government censorship should applaud this lawsuit and wish it godspeed. All this speaks to the need for robust  reform. Indeed, even Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which allows “moderation” of user speech by online web operators, was enacted to “offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse”. It has failed to do so.
READ THIS NEXT
Ex-CNN Analyst Says He Thinks Harris ‘Has More Riding On’ Debate Than Trump, She’ll ‘Probably’ Be ‘More Nervous’
Josh Shapiro Tells ‘The View’ Kamala Harris Should Not ‘Underestimate’ Trump Ahead Of Debate
‘Screaming For Appellate Review’: Jonathan Turley Recounts Merchan’s Decisions In Trump Trial After Sentencing Delay
Sign in to comment

Comments

Powered by StructureCMS™ Comments

Get Updated

© 2024 DC Enquirer, Privacy Policy