To bring you up to speed, a district court in Louisiana and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals have barred the federal government from working with social media companies to censor speech. They shouldn't be allowed to offer suggestions for content moderation or coerce or threaten social media companies regarding content-related censorship on their platforms. However, as we sit here today, the injunction that bars them from doing that is stayed indefinitely as it waits to be heard by the Supreme Court. The stay was a decision that three justices weren't very happy about, as they wrote a 5-page dissent.
But alas, the decision is on a stay, which allows the government to meddle around with "wrong think" and meddle around with "elections," something the author of this column makes very clear is happening.
The crux of the column is that the Biden Administration is super worried about folks talking about how expensive things are. But the astute will see more. The author mentions that the viral meme and videos reached the White House Office of Digital Strategy, the very same White House Office of Digital Strategy that discovery in Missouri v. Biden proved was the most egregious censorship apparatus the government had outside of CISA. The author commiserates that it isn't that much more expensive to buy a fast-food burger after all. But that isn't the story.
The story is about social media censorship under the guise of "harmful disinformation." The kind of "disinformation" that would only be "harmful" to a Democrat running for re-election. We can't have Americans lamenting food prices in an election year! That would be DANGEROUS.
And they do think it is dangerous. See? "Some economists think these kinds of comments are not just wrong, but dangerous." It's unsurprising to me, as in the deposition of Brian Scully, high up on the ladder at CISA, he specifically mentioned how "disinformation" (as defined by the government) in the financial sector could not only be harmful but a national security concern. This seems to be a significant way the government gets around that pesky 1st Amendment. Declare something a "national security concern," and it's off to the races. When asked how this fits into CISA's mandate to monitor critical infrastructure and what kind of national security concern could be raised by people discussing financial issues online, Scully said, under oath:
"Lots of ways, you can have runs on banks, such as the banking, you could have, you know, other sorts of issues related to that, so yeah, so there's -- you know, if there's a loss of confidence, if there's a run on banks and there's a run on the financial systems, those sorts of things can create physical harms, operational harms."
The next segment of the deposition goes as follows:
Attorney: "So is it part of the MDM team's job and CISA's job to counter disinformation that creates reputational risks to, for example, the financial services industry?"
Scully: "So again, our mission is to build resilience. And so we would work -- if the financial services sector wanted us to work with them, to develop products to help them understand how mis, dis and mal-information could impact their -- their sector, we would -- we would work with them on that yes."
Scully: "So again, our mission is to build resilience. And so we would work -- if the financial services sector wanted us to work with them, to develop products to help them understand how mis, dis and mal-information could impact their -- their sector, we would -- we would work with them on that yes."
No topic is off-limits, folks! We can not have the American people thinking that the financial system is anything but stable and perfect! Anything other than that would be a National Security Issue, and we, the government, would need to step in and work as a conduit between our social media partners and the private banking industry to make sure only the approved narrative makes its way out. If someone is sharing something we think is "mis-dis- or malinformation," we need to be able to tell social media companies to dispense with that sort of talk right away. And if they won't? We need to be able to threaten them into doing it.
All of this from just one little innocent-sounding WaPo article. However, it gets more sinister because the piece goes on to say that, indeed, the White House Office of Digital Strategy is working with social media companies to counter disinformation. This is the very thing barred by the temporary injunction. This isn't allowed. And if the SCOTUS had done the right thing? It wouldn't be.
So why? Is it really "national security?" Or did the author of this piece tell us why in plain language? He told us. It's this quote right here:
All of this from just one little innocent-sounding WaPo article. However, it gets more sinister because the piece goes on to say that, indeed, the White House Office of Digital Strategy is working with social media companies to counter disinformation. This is the very thing barred by the temporary injunction. This isn't allowed. And if the SCOTUS had done the right thing? It wouldn't be.
So why? Is it really "national security?" Or did the author of this piece tell us why in plain language? He told us. It's this quote right here:
"These economists fear that these exaggerated stories will ultimately lead to a worse outcome—perhaps helping Trump win reelection—and that it is vital to make clear that this remains by many measures one of the best recoveries in modern U.S. history."
Election meddling. Got it. Additionally, this is such a perfect example of how the media acts as an arm of the intelligence community as well as a good little steward for the police state. Have WaPo post a piece about inflation, pepper in some veiled government censorship activities to make the reader think it was "all for their own good," admit their wrongdoing right out in public, and then tell everyone none of it matters "because we are the government, and we are here to help…"
Don't be too dismayed, though. The continued outreach to social media companies to police content, like the topic of this article, will be discoverable in the ongoing case. And not only will the government be producing, but the social media companies will as well. The Federal District Court and the 5th Circuit of Appeals have been stunned and aghast by this behavior. The SCOTUS has also intimated as such, judging by the three judge's dissent and the fact they will hear the injunction. This continuation of behavior that will likely soon be disallowed will not be looked upon kindly by those adjudicating this case—it is basically a slap in the face, all while the government has attempted to maintain innocence, stating over and over again in court documents that they stopped all the pesky censorship activities Missouri and Louisiana are worried about.
Again, this shows why Missouri v. Biden is the most important civil liberties case of our lifetime. It will make history and already has. I hope you will continue the ride with me.
Don't be too dismayed, though. The continued outreach to social media companies to police content, like the topic of this article, will be discoverable in the ongoing case. And not only will the government be producing, but the social media companies will as well. The Federal District Court and the 5th Circuit of Appeals have been stunned and aghast by this behavior. The SCOTUS has also intimated as such, judging by the three judge's dissent and the fact they will hear the injunction. This continuation of behavior that will likely soon be disallowed will not be looked upon kindly by those adjudicating this case—it is basically a slap in the face, all while the government has attempted to maintain innocence, stating over and over again in court documents that they stopped all the pesky censorship activities Missouri and Louisiana are worried about.
Again, this shows why Missouri v. Biden is the most important civil liberties case of our lifetime. It will make history and already has. I hope you will continue the ride with me.
