It's Like 'George Orwell’s 1984': Missouri Attorney General Exposes Biden's Massive Social Media Censorship Machine

Missouri's Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R-MO) shared his observations from the first hearing scheduled for the lawsuit Missouri v. Biden. The lawsuit exposed the Biden White House's social media censorship campaign and further documented the worrying state censorship-technological nexus where state agencies and social media platforms engage in joint censorship schemes against disidents and the politically undesirable. 

The state attorney general outlined on Twitter that he thought the first hearing went well and that "The federal government had a hard time convincing a judge last week that it hasn't been working with and coercing social media companies to censor free speech." He shared several memorable moments from the hearing in a series of tweets. 

Mr. Bailey shared that "[t]he judge [had] asked the feds if they had ever read George Orwell’s 1984, pointing out the similarities between the case and the book."

Orwell's 1984 outlines the horrors of a totalitarian state and an all-encompassing surveillance state. One of the memorable lines from this dystopian novel was, "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever." The novel was a warning of how precious civil liberties are and the consequences of their loss. 

Mr. Bailey also shared a moment where the government admitted that he had collected authentic evidence and did not dispute the documents. He wrote, "[t]he Court asked the feds if all the emails between them and social media companies were real because 'it seems like there's a lot here.' The feds were forced to admit the tens of thousands of pages of evidence are genuine."

The Republican attorney general also shared that the government, while trying to avoid the First Amendment problems with their activity, had to concede that the First Amendment might be a problem in some scenarios where the government and big tech censored voices. "The judge questioned the feds on several hypotheticals, asking if the First Amendment applied. He asked if an American citizen questioning the safety or efficacy of masks or a vaccine was protected under the First Amendment. The feds' answer? 'It COULD be' but often won’t be." 
  Chilling the government's answers to the judge's various hypotheticals to them about whether the First Amendment applies was always conditional. If people say that the 2020 election was stolen or if they write that Biden is responsible for inflation and high gas prices, the government said "[i]t depends" whether that speech is covered by the First Amendment.
  When the judge pressed the government by saying "that it seemed to be only conservatives who are targeted for their speech, asking the feds if they could provide one example of a liberal who was censored due to 'misinformation.' The feds provided only one example of a liberal being censored, and that person is a political opponent of Joe Biden," relayed Mr. Bailey. 
  Mr. Bailey concluded by promising to continue with his case and that he will fight to protect the right to free speech. 
  • Article Source: DC Enquirer
  • Photo: Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images / Getty Images
BREAKING: Donald Trump Responds To Ongoing Attack On Israel - 'Should Never Have Been Allowed'
BREAKING: Iran Launches Hundreds Of Killer Drones Towards Israel, Attack Expected To Take Place In Coming Hours
Biden Admin Has Flown Over 400,000 Migrants To Airports Across US
Sign in to comment


Powered by StructureCMS™ Comments

Get Updated

© 2024 DC Enquirer, Privacy Policy