Cancelled by the Democratic Party led by Joe Biden
Blacklists are back and the Democrats have got “em: On July 4th (an appropriate date), Terry Doughty, chief U.S. district judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, ruled that the evidence clearly showed that the Biden administration, in league with most big social media companies, had been running an aggressive censorship operation against conservatives for the past two-plus years, and issued an injunction banning “numerous top Biden administration officials and agencies from communicating and meeting with social media companies.”
You can read Doughty’s ruling here [pdf]. I strongly urge you to do so, as he is harshly blunt about the ugly actions of the Democrats running the federal government since 2021. His introduction sets the tone, beginning with this quote, “I may disapprove of what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it,” and then getting more blunt from there:
This case is about the Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 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. [emphasis mine]
In his detailed review of the history, he begins by listing the number of examples of this attack against free speech by the Biden administration:
In this case, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants suppressed conservative-leaning free speech,
- (1) suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the 2020 Presidential election;
- (2) suppressing speech about the lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origin;
- (3) suppressing speech about the efficiency of masks and COVID-19 lockdowns;
- (4) suppressing speech about the efficiency of COVID-19 vaccines;
- (5) suppressing speech about election integrity in the 2020 presidential election;
- (6) suppressing speech about the security of voting by mail;
- (7) suppressing parody content about Defendants;
- (8) suppressing negative posts about the economy; and
- (9) suppressing negative posts about President Biden.
Doughty then documents in great detail — covering 150 pages — the facts that prove each of these allegations. He then concludes as follows:
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.” [emphasis mine]
The reference to Orwell’s 1984 in the last sentence is telling. The blacklisting agenda of the Democratic Party has been more than obvious for the past two years. Instead of seeing Orwell as a warning, the Democrats running the Biden administration have used it as an instruction manual. Doughty found that horrifying, and made that horror quite plain.
For example, during testimony before Doughty in June, lawyers for the Biden Justice Department made it very clear that they considered it their right to deny Americans their free speech rights. For example, when Doughty asked if “the First Amendment covered Americans’ right to say that Biden is responsible for high gas prices and inflation”, Biden’s lawyers simply said “It depends.” When asked if the first amendment covered Americans’ right “to say that the 2020 election was stolen,” those lawyers once again said “It depends.” When asked if criticizing mask and mandates fell under the first amendment, they said “It could” but they added that “it often won’t be.”
In other words, Democrats not only believe in censorship and blacklisting, they are quite willing to nonchalantly violate the Bill of Rights and the law in order to impose that censorship and blacklisting.
Doughty’s ruling on July 4th simply makes their authoritarian nature more plainly evident, and does so in a court of law.
It also appears that the many named defendants, from Joe Biden to officials who headed the CDC, NIAID, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, Justice, and the State Department, to name only a few, are also personally liable. It will be very enlightening how this case plays out. A final victory in court could become the biggest victory for free speech in decades.