Loading ...Blockbuster federal censorship case; JUDGE asks fed lawyers in fed-tech collusion case…
If they’ve ever read George Orwell’s 1984 ?
From Jon Rappaport . THIS …IS…BLOCKBUSTER REPORTING AND ANALYSIS OF THE ONGOING TRIAL BROUGHT BY MISSOURI AND LOUISIANA VS BIDEN ET AL…3 MINUTE READ…SIT DOWN
corrected link
if paywalled see the comment section
Link doesn’t work for me and I can’t find this at his blog.
PAYWALLED…HERE IT IS
Here’s a report on the case by Dan Frieth from ReclaimTheNet. Then I’ll have comments.
The judge presiding over the lawsuit filed by Missouri and Louisiana, alleging collusion between the federal government and social media companies to censor certain viewpoints, is said to have asked if the Biden administration has ever read George Orwell’s 1984.
The transcript of the hearing is not yet available. However, Missouri’s Attorney General Andrew Bailey shared some of the statements made by Judge Terry A. Doughty.
“The federal government had a hard time convincing a judge last week that it hasn’t been working with and coercing social media companies to censor free speech,” Bailey tweeted.
“The judge asked the feds if they had ever read George Orwell’s 1984, pointing out the similarities between the case and the book,” he added.
Bailey also tweeted that [Judge] Doughty asked the federal government about their views on protected speech.
“He asked if an American citizen questioning the safety or efficacy of masks or a vaccine was protected under the First Amendment,” Bailey recalled. “The feds’ answer? ‘It COULD be,’ but often won’t be.”
Doughty’s other scenarios on what speech is or isn’t allowed were met with the response: “it depends.”
“The judge also asked Biden’s lawyers if the First Amendment covered Americans’ right to say that Biden is responsible for high gas prices and inflation,” Bailey added. “Their answer? It depends.”
“The judge also asked them if the First Amendment applied to Americans’ right to say that the 2020 election was stolen,” Bailey wrote. “Their answer? It depends.”
The appointed judge also reportedly noted that it was mostly conservatives who got censored.
—OK. These federal lawyers the judge questioned; they represent the federal government.
Their answers about free speech limitations certainly were meant to apply to citizens posting on social media. But the implications were wider.
If the government can define the limit of free speech in a particular venue (e.g., Twitter), it can define the limit of free speech anywhere.
The even bigger scandal is: what the hell is the government doing by defining free speech at all?
“We might permit this or not permit it. We’d have to examine specifics.”
Bullshit.
Federal lawyers, in a court, before a judge, are saying they control the 1st Amendment. They define it. They can and will parse it and decide where and how it applies.
They’re essentially blowing the whistle (without a care in the world) on the federal government.
I’m not sure the judge grasps that fully.
I’m not sure he realizes what he has ON THE RECORD.
This would be very much like Biden appearing in the Rose Garden with a list of statements. He reads them to the press. He says, “These statements we will not allow. No one can utter them in public without being punished.”
And then, if a law-abiding citizen (who is a moron) wants to make a public remark, he would consult first with a government official.
“Sir, I’m addressing a school board meeting in Cincinnati next week. I’m prepared to say COVID vaccines have been injuring large numbers of people. Is that allowed? Because I don’t want to incur a penalty.”
“In front of a school board? Hmm. I think not. Don’t say that there. 1st Amendment protection wouldn’t apply in that situation. Now, if it were a picnic in the park, a more casual situation, we might permit it…”
“Many thanks for the clarification. Here’s another question. I’m giving a lecture to a college club on the Ukraine War. I plan to discuss how a number of US weapons have found their way into the black market. They were earmarked for the Ukraine Army, as part of our aid packages.”
“Right. Hold off on that for now. Maybe in six months, when the war is going better. Get back to us then and we’ll consider it again…”
Because that’s what the federal lawyers are telling the judge in the Missouri case. They decide when, how, and where citizens can make statements. “It depends.”
That’s a prime-cut Grade-A illustration of insurrection.
— Jon Rappoport