This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge who not long ago called out the Biden administration for running a "Ministry of Truth" now has consolidated two separate challenges to the president's campaign to have federal bureaucrats tell private social media companies to censor ideas that don't align with the White House.
In issuing an injunction that banned the administration from meeting with social media companies to discuss that censorship, a decision suspended by an appeals court for now, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty had said in one of the cases, 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.'"
The cases being consolidated are the case from which that ruling emanated, Missouri et al v. Biden, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Children's Health Defense et al v. Biden.
A statement from CHD confirmed, "Both cases are actions against the Biden administration for allegedly colluding with social media platforms to censor the speech of citizens on many topics including COVID-19."
The CHD case was filed last March and charges that Biden, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and a number of agencies – including the CDC, HHS, DHS, CISA, NIAID, Census Bureau, and the FBI – "colluded with and pressured social media companies to suppress speech that runs counter to government narratives and silence specific speakers who are critical of federal policy."
The issues include the First Amendment rights of the CHD.
Missouri v. Biden dates back to last year, when then-Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, now a U.S. senator, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry insisted on exposing "how top Biden administration officials allegedly colluded with social media companies to censor freedom of speech."
"What we've witnessed over the past three years is the most intense assault on free speech in the history of our nation," said Kennedy, CHD’s chairman on leave. "Consolidating these two cases is a turning point, allowing us to better determine exactly how such massive censorship was formulated and executed so we can prevent it from ever happening again."
When the judge sought to limit the damage caused by Biden administration officials in contact with social media platforms, said, "The right of free speech is a fundamental constitutional right that is vital to the freedom of our nation. … Defendants’ alleged suppression has potentially resulted in millions of free speech violations. Plaintiffs’ free speech rights thus far outweigh the rights of Defendants, and thus, Plaintiffs satisfy the final elements needed to show entitlement to a preliminary injunction."
Schmitt followed up with a letter to the 19 individual defendants in Missouri v. Biden, "demanding compliance with the court’s ruling and receipt of all correspondence with social media companies aimed at censoring speech."
"Accountability is coming for those in the Biden administration who sought to censor viewpoints they disagreed with or disliked online," Schmitt explained. "I will continue to stand up for the First Amendment and work to end the Biden Administration's vast censorship enterprise once and for all."
The facts are that, during COVID, multiple bureaucrats in the Biden administration had access to foundations, to which they could complain about online or other comments that they wanted to have suppressed.
Those outside groups then would pressure social media companies to censor those materials identified by the bureaucrats, who could not do that directly as that's forbidden by the Constitution.