This is huge folks…
The Supreme Court just issued an Injunction blocking Big Tech (and their proxies) from interfering with elections.
Absolutely massive ruling.
Yes, it’s only an injunction and a final decision will still need to be made but this is a tremendous first step to stop the Unconstitutional election interference!
Here are the details…
According to a recent injunction from Judge Terry A. Doughty, the Biden administration likely violated the First Amendment by colluding with Big tech companies to censor ‘misinformation.’
While it must be stressed that this injunction is temporary, it does provide some insight into what is likely to transpire in the future.
It also cannot be ignored that this injunction was issued on this particular day—Happy 4th of July my fellow Americans! Let freedom ring.
Now for the visual learners out there, check out this video from a new friend of mine, Professor Toto.
You’re gonna like this guy, he breaks down complicated Constitutional issues in a way that’s easy for everyone to understand.
And I thought his take on this case was excellent.
Watch here on Rumble:
Here’s what everyone else is saying:
A full report of the temporary injunction blocking the Biden Admin and its agencies from communicating with social media companies. pic.twitter.com/VNDeQrwjj4
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) July 4, 2023
Senator Eric Schmitt celebrated, “A Federal Judge in Missouri v. Biden just granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the FBI, DOJ, DHS & other agencies from working with Big Tech to censor on social media. Big win for the First Amendment on this Independence Day. I’m proud to have led the fight.”
🚨BREAKING: A Federal Judge in Missouri v. Biden just granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the FBI, DOJ, DHS & other agencies from working with Big Tech to censor on social media
Big win for the First Amendment on this Independence Day🇺🇸
I’m proud to have led the fight. pic.twitter.com/59FzDVuI4f
— Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) July 4, 2023
Journalist Brian Cates offered this interesting theory: “The feds figured out MONTHS ago they were going lose Missouri v Biden.
It’s why the UniParty members in Congress quickly threw together the RESTRICT ACT to ‘legalize’ all the illegal shit they’d been doing.
The ‘Tik-Tok ban’ was a TROJAN HORSE.”
THIS IS CORRECT.
The feds figured out MOTHS ago they were going lose Missouri v Biden.
It’s why the UniParty members in Congress quickly threw together the RESTRICT ACT to **legalize** all the illegal shit they’d been doing.
The ‘Tik Tok ban’ was a TROJAN HORSE. https://t.co/mISTYRbFoN
— Brian Cates – Political Columnist & Pundit (@drawandstrike) July 4, 2023
Jeffrey A Tucker provided this quote: “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.”
"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.”" https://t.co/4hCglkIhZz
— Jeffrey A Tucker (@jeffreyatucker) July 4, 2023
Previously, Bill Rice Jr wrote to explain why he believed Missouri V Biden may be the most important court case in history:
Laymen and legal scholars alike agree that the First Amendment does not compel any publisher to print any and all speech.
For example, a private company like The New York Times can publish, or not publish, whatever speech it wants for whatever reason it wants.
The issue in this case is whether citizens living in the “town square” can use Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. to share their opinions or facts.
Or, more specifically, can the government use its immense power to compel private companies to censor speech the government doesn’t like (speech labeled by the government as dangerous, extremist, false or basically “misinformation” or “disinformation” as the government defines these terms). …
The core issue at stake is should American citizens be allowed to have genuine “freedom of speech.”