JUST IN: Federal Judge Issues Ruling in Biden Admin-Big Tech Censorship Case

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Biden administration officials and social media companies colluded together and likely violated the First Amendment rights of Americans by censoring free speech during the COVID-19 plandemic.

U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump-appointee, blocked contact between federal government officials and social media companies.

“The Court has granted our motion to BLOCK top officials in the federal government from violating the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans,” said Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey.

“What a way to celebrate Independence Day,” he added.

🚨BREAKING: The Court has granted our motion to BLOCK top officials in the federal government from violating the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans.

What a way to celebrate Independence Day.

— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) July 4, 2023

“The preliminary injunction prohibits nearly all of the federal government, including DHS, DOJ, and HHS, from coercing and colluding with social media companies to censor free speech,” Bailey wrote.

“Key officials of the White House, CDC, FBI, State Department, and other agencies are also blocked from participating in the federal government’s vast censorship enterprise,” he added.

Key officials of the White House, CDC, FBI, State Department, and other agencies are also blocked from participating in the federal government’s vast censorship enterprise. pic.twitter.com/2WpBjtbm6K

— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) July 4, 2023

The Washington Examiner reports:

The suit stems largely from efforts made during the pandemic to address social media posts related to COVID-19 policy. The attorneys general accused the Biden administration of creating a sprawling federal “Censorship Enterprise,” the Washington Post reported, encouraging Big Tech companies to remove disfavored speech.

The pair called it “the most egregious violations of the First Amendment in the history of the United States of America.”

While the judge hasn’t made a final ruling, he said the plaintiffs had produced evidence of a “massive effort” from the White House and federal agencies to “suppress speech based on its content.” Doughty allowed for exceptions to the communication block, including national security threats and criminal activity.

Collaboration between the government and Big Tech during the pandemic has been controversial for years now.

In one famous exchange, then-White House press secretary Jen Psaki said in July 2021 the administration was “flagging problematic posts for Facebook,” leading a reporter to ask how long the administration had been spying on people’s profiles.

The 155-page ruling states:

“The explosion of social-media platforms has resulted in unique free speech issues— this is especially true in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history. In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech.”

Doughty writes in his conclusion:

“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.”

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.”

Read the full 155-page ruling HERE.