Supremes take up Biden's 'Orwellian' censorship in historic case

March 18, 2024
World Net Daily

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The Supreme Court heard arguments about a Biden regime agenda to push, using the influence of the federal government, and social media companies to censor ideas and comments that the administration dislikes.

And Jenin Younes, litigation counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which brought the dispute to the court system, said it's just not allowed under the Constitution for politicians to pick "disfavored" statements and order them suppressed.

"Our clients, who include top doctors and scientists, were censored for social media posts that turned out to be factually accurate, depriving the public of valuable perspectives during a public health crisis. We’re optimistic that the majority will look at the record and recognize that this was a sprawling government censorship enterprise without precedent in this country and that this cannot be permitted to continue if the First Amendment is to survive," Younes said.

A ruling in the case isn't expected from the court for some time, but it likely will have a massive impact on the concept of free speech and the First Amendment across America.

The trial court judge likened the government's scheming in the case to the Orwellian "Ministry of Truth" that propagated nothing but lies.

Many of the details of that ruling were affirmed by an appeals court, but the government, insisting on the right to determine the information to which people have access, took it to the Supreme Court.

Much of the censorship at the time concerned the COVID-19 pandemic and the experimental shots that were developed and given to millions of people at the time.

That included giving shots to children, who had a very high resistance to COVID.

Further, evidence now has confirmed a multitude of side effects of the COVID-19 shots, up to and including death.

"I stand here representing the hundreds of millions of Americans who are not medical professionals, academics, or journalists but who simply knew that what was happening in America was not right. We went to social media to voice our opinions and were silenced by government employees who bullied social media snowflakes into silencing our voices. The government has no authority to police our opinions; they are protected speech. I would argue the government is the source of misinformation, and it is our responsibility as Americans to make every effort to correct that," said Jill Hines, one of the plaintiffs.

A report from NCLA said the case is Murthy v. Missouri, and the high court considered whether to affirm a historic preliminary injunction granted by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

That has been temporarily "stayed," but it would bar officials from the White House, CDC, FBI, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and Surgeon General’s office from coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech.

It originally sas U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty who blasted the government for its program to blacklist, shadow-ban, de-boost, throttle and suspend social media activity by those who disagreed with the Biden administration's chosen, and sometimes faulty, opinions on COVID.

"This censorship regime has successfully suppressed perspectives contradicting government-approved views on hotly disputed topics such as whether natural immunity to CVID-19 exists, the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, the virus’s origins, and mask mandate efficacy," the legal team said.

NCLA has pointed out that the First Amendment’s text forbids "abridging" the freedom of speech, "meaning the government’s scheme violates the Constitution even when it encourages social media platforms to suppress legal speech without coercing them."

Other plaintiffs are Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Aaron Kheriaty, and Martin Kulldorff.

"Just down the street, the Constitution of the United States sits in the Archives. If Americans don’t stand up and defend our constitutional rights, it is just a piece of paper. I am honored to be here with NCLA and my co-plaintiffs to defend the constitutional right of free speech, which has been systematically suppressed by the federal government. I trust that the Supreme Court will do the right thing and uphold the injunction against government censorship of constitutionally protected speech," Kheriaty said.

Mark Chenoweth, president of the NCLA, said, "The First Amendment does not allow the government to abridge speech based on whether the speech is true or false. That is what the government did here, and if that is allowed then the First Amendment is a dead letter"

Latest News

© 2024 - Patriot News Alerts