This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

One of the biggest fights in America today is the war against the Biden administration's efforts to "block, ban, remove, de-platform, de-boost, restrict, or otherwise deny equal access or visibility" to tech platform users.

One of those battling those programs, illustrated by the FBI's interference in the 2020 election when it told media corporations to suppress information about Biden family scandals documented in a computer abandoned by Hunter Biden at a repair shop, is the Rutherford Institute.

"Technofascism is the modern-day equivalent of book burning, which does away with controversial ideas and the people who espouse them," explained constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of "Battlefield America: The War on the American People."

He said, "As the Supreme Court itself recognized, 'The people lose when the government is the one deciding which ideas should prevail.' Once you allow government agencies and corporations to determine what viewpoints are 'legitimate' and which are not, you’re already moving fast down a slippery slope that ends with the censorship of all viewpoints altogether other than that of the government and its corporate allies."

The organization has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Court in the case Murthy v. Missouri.

The case isn't complicated. It charges the federal government with violating the free speech rights under the First Amendment by "coercing and significantly encouraging social media companies to silence any viewpoints at odds with the government."

Those include views on COVID-19, fraud in the 2020 election, and more.

The organization explained, "For years now, federal officials from the White House, the Surgeon General's Office, CDC, FBI and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency have been in regular contact with nearly every major American social media company about the spread of 'misinformation' on their platforms, urging them to remove disfavored content and accounts…"

In response those corporations, often run by extremely wealthy leftists, "gave government officials access to an expedited reporting system, downgraded or removed flagged posts, and deplatformed users."

Those corporations also reported to their government handlers.

The result was a First Amendment lawsuit where the judge first hearing the complaint called the government's scheming "Orwellian" and akin to that writer's "Ministry of Truth," which promoted lies.

"It was government officials who were pulling the strings through private communications and threats," Rutherford said. "Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include two epidemiologists who criticized COVID-19 lockdowns; a psychiatrist who opposed lockdowns and vaccine mandates; the owner of Gateway Pundit, a once-de-platformed news site; and the states of Missouri and Louisiana, whose attorneys general asserted their interests in protecting their citizens and the free flow of information

"In siding with the plaintiffs, both the trial court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that government officials 'engaged in a broad pressure campaign' by 'relentlessly' asking the platforms to remove disfavored content (including 'anti-vaccine' content which did not contain actionable misinformation), making 'uncompromising demands' to moderate content, and threatening to retaliate against inaction with the prospect of legal reforms and enforcement actions"

The case now is pending at the U.S. Supreme Court, where government officials are claiming they have the right to censor opinions that are expressed in America. if they disagree with the Biden administration.