The judge has issued a Memorandum ruling on the government's Motion to Stay Injunction in Missouri v. Biden. It’s another amazing day for freedom.
The judge first goes through the criteria for granting an injunction.
The court AGAIN states they feel the plaintiffs will succeed on the merits, but he also adds something—that the White House defendants and the Surgeon General Defendants were found to have likely engaged in the coercion of social media companies. He then goes on to AGAIN give examples.
Read this, legacy media. Everyone else should read it too. The White House and Surgeon General demanded that social media platforms censor Americans and used coercion to get there. How many times does this need to be in writing for you to get it??
The CDC and the NIAID also partook in censorship. A lot. These are just a SMALL subsection of examples.
The judge is giving the appellate court ANOTHER GLIMPSE into WHY he ruled this way on the injunction by AGAIN showing the government that what they have done is unconstitutional and wrong.
The FBI and CISA also worked with social media to CENSOR AMERICANS. Please note that the judge is just as troubled as I am (and all of you are) about “COGNITIVE INFRASTRUCTURE.”
The STATE DEPARTMENT worked to censor the speech of Americans. And so did “NGO” EIP. Working as an arm of the government because the government couldn’t go as far as it would have liked. This is so brazen.
Yet AGAIN, this judge dissects the Article 3 standing argument. The government alleges that Plaintiffs Missouri and Louisiana do not have standing to sue—Judge disagrees and also lets them know that ONLY ONE PLAINTIFF needs to have standing for the lawsuit to continue. Swing and a miss.
The judge makes sure to let the government know that our 1st Amendment rights are more important than their interests.
…and says what we have all been saying: “The Defendants are asking the court to grant them relief to a preliminary injunction that only bars illegal content. In other words, the only effect of staying the preliminary injunction would be to free Defendants to urge, encourage, pressure, or induce the removal of content containing protected free speech on social media platforms…”
The court then details all of the things the government is STILL ALLOWED to do. CNN lies to you.
The problem is that the government can’t even provide one example of something they wouldn’t *legally* be able to do. All of the concerns they originally cited were exempt.
And as we have all discussed, the government couldn’t understand what “protected free speech” meant, so now the judge REALLY spells it out for them.
Again the judge declares there was coercion and viewpoint discrimination BY THE GOVERNMENT and that the Plaintiffs will likely win this case.
“Although this Preliminary Injunction involves numerous agencies, it is not as broad as it appears. It only prohibits something the Defendants have no legal right to do—contacting social media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on their platforms…”
God bless Judge Terry A. Doughty.
