LA AG Jeff Landry celebrates victory in Govt-Big Tech censorship case as Independence Day win.

Major Victory for First Amendment: Federal Court Partially Restrains Big Tech Censorship

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry celebrated a significant win for the First Amendment as a federal court issued a preliminary injunction, partially restraining the federal government from collaborating with Big Tech companies to censor Americans’ speech on social media platforms.

This decision, delivered on Independence Day, marks a crucial moment in an ongoing legal battle against what Landry describes as “one of the most massive undertakings of the federal government to limit American speech in the history of our country.”

During an interview with The Epoch Times’ “American Thought Leaders: Now” program on July 4, Landry expressed his satisfaction with the court’s ruling, stating, “The things that we uncovered in this case should be both shocking, appalling, and concerning for all Americans. And so we’re glad to see that the judge saw it our way.”

Landry emphasized the significance of the case and hailed the ruling as potentially one of the most important First Amendment cases in modern history. He highlighted the symbolic timing of the decision on Independence Day, a day when Americans fought against tyranny to secure their liberty.

U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty of Louisiana granted the injunction in the case of State of Missouri v. Joseph R Biden Jr., brought by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri in a 2022 lawsuit.

Injunction ‘Begins Curtailing’ Government Overreach

Describing the injunction as a “broad” measure, Landry explained that it prohibits the listed government actors involved in the case from engaging with social media companies to censor Americans’ speech. This order marks a significant step in curtailing government interference in determining what constitutes information, disinformation, and misinformation on social media platforms.

The ruling restrains several government agencies and individuals from encouraging, pressuring, or inducing the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech. The order specifically names officials and agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the United States Census Bureau, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Department of State, among others.

‘Put a Fence Around’ Government’s Authority

The lawsuit brought by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri argues that the federal government overstepped its boundaries by pressuring social media companies to address posts related to vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic and potential impacts on elections.

The lawsuit also raises concerns about the Biden administration’s use of regulatory consequences to compel social media platforms to suppress information it deems as misinformation regarding masks and vaccines during the pandemic. It also addresses allegations regarding election integrity and news articles about content found on Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop.

In his ruling, Judge Doughty cited “substantial evidence” of a far-reaching censorship campaign, describing the evidence as depicting an almost dystopian scenario. Landry emphasized the need to redefine the limits of the federal government’s authority in relation to Americans’ freedom of speech.

The court order applies to various social media platforms, including Facebook/Meta, Twitter, YouTube/Google, WhatsApp, Instagram, WeChat, TikTok, Sina Weibo, QQ, Telegram, Snapchat, Kuaishou, Qzone, Pinterest, Reddit, LinkedIn, Quora, Discord, Twitch, Tumblr, Mastodon, and similar platforms.

Government Claims Injunction Hinders Ability to Combat Foreign Influence

Lawyers for the Biden administration argue that the government has left it up to social media companies to determine what constitutes misinformation and how to combat it. They likened the lawsuit to an attempt to suppress the speech of federal government officials under the guise of protecting the speech rights of others.

Responding to these criticisms, Landry asserted that dealing with foreign influences is nothing new for the United States. He emphasized that the First Amendment empowers American citizens to make informed decisions and warned against a scenario where the government becomes the sole arbiter of truth.