5 Instances of Government Censorship SCOTUS Permitted to Continue
Last week, the Supreme Court made a significant decision to hear the groundbreaking free speech case Missouri v. Biden. However, they also blocked a lower court injunction that was preventing the Biden Administration and deep state officials from colluding with Big Tech companies to censor American speech. This move effectively allows dangerous government censorship to continue until the Supreme Court reaches a verdict.
The injunction, issued by U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty and expanded by the Fifth Circuit Court, stated that the Surgeon General, White House, FBI, CDC, and eventually the CISA cannot communicate with social media companies to police speech. However, thanks to the courts, these entities are now seemingly allowed to punish any speech they deem as “wrong think” in favor of the state.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the case before the end of June. However, until then, the lower court’s decision to block the injunction means that Americans’ First Amendment rights are currently under attack, and the integrity of the 2024 election is in grave danger.
Here are five examples from Missouri v. Biden that demonstrate the serious risks posed by the Supreme Court’s decision to put a stay on the injunction:
Hunter Biden Laptop Story
Missouri v. Biden revealed the FBI’s integral role in suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story, which polls indicated could have influenced the 2020 presidential election. The FBI met regularly with Big Tech companies before the election and labeled the laptop as “Russian disinformation,” leading to mass censorship of the story.
The FBI failed to inform the companies that the laptop was verified and real, despite knowing this since December 2019. As a result, social media companies suppressed the story, even when specifically asked about its authenticity.
Masks
In July 2021, the U.S. Surgeon General partnered with social media companies to combat “misinformation” about masks. This partnership effectively made the government’s opinions on Covid the only accepted truth, leading to the censorship of any content that challenged the efficacy of masks.
Covid Vaccines
The White House had extensive meetings with Twitter, Meta, and YouTube to combat vaccine hesitancy and misinformation. They not only influenced Big Tech censorship policies but also targeted specific users and content. For example, they pressured Twitter to permanently deplatform a writer who had science-based objections to the vaccinations of young, healthy individuals.
The White House even demanded censorship beyond the terms of use of social media platforms. They requested additional data, levers for tackling vaccine hesitancy content, and censorship policies. Facebook agreed to censor and reduce the visibility of anti-vaccine content that they deemed as not containing actionable misinformation.
The White House also used social media to promote their vaccine propaganda, requesting Facebook to amplify pro-vaccine messaging.
2020 Election Integrity
The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), a subsidiary of the Department of Homeland Security, directly forwarded social media posts critical of the integrity of the 2020 election to tech companies for censorship.
Many of these posts questioned the security and fairness of mass mail-in balloting, which was implemented disproportionately to favor Democrats. CISA was focused on censoring these posts.
Biden Parody Content
The White House demanded the censorship of parody posts and accounts mocking the Biden family. They requested Twitter to ban a parody account linked to Finnegan Biden, Hunter Biden’s daughter and President Biden’s granddaughter. The account was banned within 45 minutes.
In another instance, the White House pressured Twitter to remove an edited video of First Lady Jill Biden. Twitter initially added a warning label to the video but ultimately removed it after further discussions with the first lady’s press secretary.
Other topics controlled and suppressed by the federal government include content critical of Covid lockdowns, supportive of the Covid lab leak theory, skeptical of climate change, and critical of the president.
Each of these censored topics either benefited Joe Biden’s campaign or his current reelection effort by protecting him, his family, and his preferred political narratives. By throwing out the injunction, the Supreme Court has allowed the government to continue its illegal censorship practices, which will likely be used to manipulate the presidential election once again. The Biden Administration has already used unprecedented measures to hinder President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign, including silencing him on the campaign trail through a gag order.
As Associate Justice Samuel Alito expressed in his dissent, this decision by the Supreme Court gives the government the green light to use heavy-handed tactics to control the dissemination of news, which is deeply concerning.
rnrn
In what ways can the manipulation and suppression of information during elections affect the integrity of the democratic process
A major issue in the 2020 election. By allowing CISA to collaborate with social media companies to censor these posts, the government essentially silenced any opposition to the narrative of a fair and secure election.
These examples from Missouri v. Biden demonstrate how the collaboration between government agencies and Big Tech companies can result in the suppression of free speech and the manipulation of public opinion. The lower court’s injunction aimed to prevent this dangerous collusion, but the Supreme Court’s decision to block it allows censorship to continue.
The protection of free speech is a fundamental pillar of democracy. The ability to express diverse opinions, challenge authority, and engage in open debate is essential for a thriving society. However, when the government and deep state officials collude with Big Tech to control and censor speech, it erodes the very foundation of our democracy.
It is concerning that the integrity of the 2024 election is also at stake. By allowing the government to dictate what can and cannot be said, it opens the door for manipulation and the suppression of information that may be crucial in making informed decisions during elections.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear Missouri v. Biden is a step towards addressing this issue, but until a verdict is reached, Americans’ First Amendment rights remain under attack. It is crucial for the Court to uphold the principles of free speech and protect the integrity of our democratic processes.
As citizens, it is our responsibility to stay informed, question authority, and advocate for the preservation of free speech. It is through open dialogue and the exchange of diverse ideas that we can ensure a robust and inclusive democracy. We must urge the Supreme Court to prioritize the protection of free speech in its decision on Missouri v. Biden and safeguard the rights that are essential to our democracy.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
Now loading...