The Gateway Pundit has not only reported over and over again on the Missouri v. Biden litigation, which went to oral arguments before the Supreme Court in March to determine in Murthy v. Missouri, whether a preliminary injunction could stop massive government censorship on all major social media platforms while the case was being litigated.
The Supreme Court issued a horrible opinion this past July authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett that allowed the government to continue suppressing free speech while the case continued at the trial court level. The Gateway Pundit then discovered that one of Coney-Barrett’s clerks was connected to the anti-free speech entities, colleges, and donors at issue in the litigation in a significant conflict of interest.
Justice Amy Coney-Barrett, author of the opinion in Murthy v. Missouri which allows the government to continue coercive censorship on social media platforms for the 2024 election
Last month, on August 26th, the trial court took notice of the Supreme Court’s opinion and vacated the preliminary injunctions which were temporary court orders stopping the government from censoring Americans while the case progressed through the courts. The day after, Judge Terry A Doughty set a briefing schedule for questions of jurisdiction.
The key question is whether the parties have standing to continue the case. Standing is typically a way in which courts dispose of cases they would rather not hear, by saying a particular party lacks the status necessary to continue litigating the case in the courts.
Because of Justice Amy Coney-Barrett’s awful Supreme Court decision, joined by Justice Kavanaugh, where she questioned whether the parties had the ‘standing’ necessary to continue the case, the trial court is now trying to reconcile the question. Amy Coney-Barrett doesn’t think state Attorney Generals, States, and individual plaintiffs, have the standing necessary to challenge the coercive deletion of their own social media posts.
One attorney close to the case points out the insanity of this decision: “If all of these parties don’t have standing, then who does? If you can’t sue when the government is deleting your own social media posts, and your Attorney General can’t sue, then clearly no one can. The Court is setting up an absurdity where no one can sue to protect the First Amendment, and it’s obscene.”
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Now the case is trying to add Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as another litigant in the case as he has been personally suppressed on social media, and his organization Children’s Health Defense has been suppressed, on topics related to vaccine safety and vaccine injuries.
Additionally, last week the Plaintiffs in the case filed an answer with the court asking three things:
to consider the ‘standing’ requirements as applying only to the preliminary injunction process, and not relevant to the larger case, and
that more legal discovery is required to determine the extent and scope of the government’s massive censorship regime, and
that the plaintiffs should be allowed to amend their filing to comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The site “UncoverDC” did a thorough rundown of the Plaintiff’s memo in support of further discovery and to be allowed to update and amend their complaint here.
The lying liberal media refers to this case as simply the Biden regime “hectoring” social media companies, as Politico spun the case. The liars at Vox tried to say that this limited what Biden had to say to social media companies. CBS lied and said that this case was about ‘restricting government contact‘ with social media companies.
Facebook alone, in less than a year, took down over 20 million pieces of content.
Last month, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg apologized to Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R) and admitted that the social media giant was pressured and coerced by the government to delete content and speech by its users, and promised to not make the same mistake again.
The Missouri v. Biden case is so Orwellian that it emerged during discovery that the government considers the thoughts of its citizens as ‘critical infrastructure’ so that the government can then justify doing almost anything to combat ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation.’
Free speech experts have called the Missouri v. Biden litigation the most important free speech case in a decade.
What’s happening is that the government is coercing social media companies to delete individual social media posts, ban individual users, prohibit any discussion of certain topics like vaccine injuries, voter fraud, the losing war in Ukraine, the China-lab origins of COVID, and the Hunter Biden Laptop from Hell, but also to systemically suppress the political opponents of the White House.
The deep state abused its censorship powers to cement and solidify its control over the public after the rampant and systemic voter fraud in the 2020 election.
The government went after accounts with large followings like Emerald Robinson and even deleting interviews with dissidents like Dr. Robert Malone, but they also went after people who had few, if any, followers. On behalf of the Ukrainian government, the United States government even directed social media companies to suppress criticism by Americans talking to one another on social media of the war in Ukraine.
The courageous Attorney Generals of Missouri and Louisiana filed suit against the Biden regime, alleging that their citizens’ fundamental first amendment rights had been violated en masse. Gateway Pundit Founder and Publisher Jim Hoft is the lead Plaintiff in the Missouri v. Biden case.
Indraneel Sur, DOJ attorney working to censor Americans on social media
Joshua Gardner, DOJ attorney working to censor Americans on social media
Kuntal Cholera, DOJ attorney working to censor Americans on social media
Amanda Chuzi, DOJ attorney working to censor Americans on social media
Alex Resar, DOJ attorney working to censor Americans on social media
The Department of Justice’s attorneys on the case are Indraneel Sur, Kuntal Cholera, Kyla Snow, Adam D. Kirschner, Alexander William Resar, Amanda Chuzi, and Joshua E. Gardner.
DOJ Attorney Adam Kirschner was found in a prior case to have deliberately misled a federal judge, in a decision that was scrubbed from the court record and documents.
DOJ Attorney Indraneel Sur is a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who gave pro-Kavanaugh speeches before the Federalist Society praising Kavanaugh’s outlook and judicial philosophy.
The case is 3:22-CV-1213 at the trial court in the Western District of Louisiana.
The post Missouri v. Biden Back to Trial Court, Govt. Wants to Wholesale Censor all Social Media Posts and Misquotes SCOTUS to use Barrett Decision to Dismiss Case appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.