A landmark censorship case that is turning the unconstitutional actions of our government on its head. The case is Missouri v. Biden.
I have been reporting on this case since the day it was filed. For those of you who may be just hearing about it, this is it in a nutshell: The states of Missouri and Louisiana, along with several private Plaintiffs, are suing the United States government, alleging that they pressured social media companies to implement censorship of Americans on their platforms.
The complaint requested expedited discovery and deposition in order to obtain a temporary injunction. This was granted. In the months since, there have been a number of twists and turns, but depositions were taken, and I attended the oral arguments for the temporary injunction in Federal court in Louisiana.
On July 4th, after over a month of waiting, the judge finally ruled and GRANTED this injunction, which bars social media companies from engaging in meetings, discussions, etc., where the purpose is to flag content or collaborate on censorship. We will go over this in detail in a moment.
The order is groundbreaking, but this case is groundbreaking. It is one of the most important civil liberties cases of our lifetimes. I implore you to look at my pinned tweet, as the thread is highly detailed and covers everything thus far. Before we continue, a round of applause for one of the only judges left with the cajoles to do the right thing. He should be commended.
After largely ignoring this case, legacy media is now forced to report on it. Of course, they are reporting dishonestly; it’s what they do. We are about to go through the entire filing, all 155 pages of it, so that you can see what is ACTUALLY discussed instead of the nonsense that is being fed.
This order was painstakingly written. It has now been appealed, but there is no stay in place, meaning this order will be in effect until the appeal is heard or until the motion for a stay is granted. I am of the firm belief that no appellate court judge will be able to read this and overturn the injunction. You will see why in a moment.
Here is the link to the 155-page document we will be dissecting now. It is laid out into sections and details what each agency has done in blatant disregard for the Constitution. The information contained within is all based on discovery obtained in order to argue for this injunction in the first place.
In his introduction, the judge points out that the censorship almost EXCLUSIVELY targeted conservative speech. This was a point he asked about in the hearing. The government’s reply was that 99% of all “misinformation” just happens to come from the right….. Marinate on that for a moment…
He then goes on to educate the government on the First Amendment, with quotes from our founders discussing its importance. The very reason it exists, he says, is to “invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.”
The White House
On 2/6/21, Rob Flaherty (who has left his role at the White House) demanded Twitter remove a Biden parody account using the language below. Twitter acted within 45 minutes.
Facebook sent emails to the White House and also Vivek Murthy explaining how they would be engaging in censorship as per the WHITE HOUSE REQUESTS and indicating there would be expanded penalties. They referenced a partnership with the government to censor American speech. Their words.
Slavitt threatens Meta, stating, “Internally, we have been considering our options about what to do about it.” These social media companies were being directly threatened to censor Americans from the WHITE HOUSE.
The Surgeon General’s Office
Eric Waldo from Vivek Murthy’s office was deposed in the expedited discovery. He is no longer working for the Surgeon General’s office.
The Office of the Surgeon General was one of the first places we saw this corrupt public/private partnership form discussed in a column by Wendi Mahoney for UncoverDC that covered Renee DiResta from Stanford Internet Observatory. She was integral to a lot of this, and organizations like the EIP, Stanford Internet Observatory, the Virality Project, etc., were formed explicitly so that the government could work through and fund them and circumvent more blatant Constitutionality issues.
The Center for Disease Control and the Deposition of Carol Crawford
Crawford is responsible for the digital side of the CDC, which falls under the HHS, and she was the main point of contact for social media platforms. Prior to the pandemic, the CDC had limited interaction with social platforms. Crawford let FB know the CDC wanted to help address “widespread myths” on the platform.
Facebook reached out to the CDC, asking if certain claims were true or false. The CDC rated these claims FALSE. These claims are not false.
1. COVID-19 vaccines weaken the immune system.
2. COVID-19 vaccines cause auto-immune disease.
3. ADE is a side effect of COVID-19 Vaccines.
4. COVID-19 causes AIDS.
5. Breast milk from a vaccinated parent is harmful to newborns.
6. COVID-19 causes MIS-C in children.
The first section discusses the censorship of the lab leak theory. Due to comments by Fauci, numerous platforms removed content relating to the theory that COVID-19 was leaked from a lab in China.
As per the Plaintiff, Fauci lied over 100 times in his deposition. However, he didn’t deny that because of his public statements about the efficacy and safety of HCQ, social media platforms removed videos from America’s Frontline Doctors.
Fauci was also directly involved in the censorship of the Great Barrington Declaration. His public statements about the dangerousness of the ideas caused social companies to immediately censor proponents and remove the content from their platforms.
They also really didn’t like parody content about Fauci. The NIAID and staff were directly responsible for demanding that social media platforms remove any parody of Fauci and also lock usernames so people couldn’t create accounts. They did this on Twitter/Facebook/Instagram.
Other censorship topics that the NIAID focused on were censoring content about Ivermectin being effective to treat COVID and the efficacy of masks. The filing lays out Fauci’s flip-flopping on mask efficacy. Additionally, Fauci couldn’t confirm or deny that he spoke with the White House about censoring Alex Berenson.
The FBI Defendants and the Deposition of Elvis Chan
Fun Fact: The FBI didn’t want Chan deposed, and in fact, the Plaintiffs only figured out who he was because META told them. Then, the government tried to deny it for a while but wasn’t able to, and the judge ruled that he be deposed.
Chan meets with other agencies and social media companies using a CISA-organized “industry working group.” Also, in these meetings? The DNI, Homeland Security, the FBI, and DOJ. They wanted Chan there because he is Headquartered out of San Francisco, where most social companies are Headquartered.
Chan meets at LEAST quarterly with these “partners,” where they talk about disinformation being spread and also spoke about the potential “hack and dump” operations set for 2020, which we now know were all about the Hunter Biden laptop.
The FBI maintains a round-the-clock “command center” to receive and deliver reports of misinformation and disinformation. There are as many as 12 FBI agents present for all of this, and before each election cycle, the FBI, CISA, and others would meet with Social Media companies to discuss “disinformation.” They also used encrypted channels to communicate.
Before the election, the FBI and others mentioned the possibility of “hack and dump” operations. In response to this, social media companies updated their policy to prove that posting “hacked” materials violates them. Couldn’t have a repeat of the Podesta and DNC emails.
Chan denied that they mentioned anything about Hunter Biden in these meetings, but Yoel Roth and others had made statements to the contrary. Roth tried to walk this back months ago, but even that wasn’t successful. Please read:
The Hunter Biden laptop story was censored due to those actions.
Chan also testified that in addition to what they considered “foreign” disinformation, they also targeted DOMESTIC disinformation, with FBI field offices sending it along to the election command in SF. Then the FBI would send the info to socials. They made no attempt to distinguish if it were foreign or domestic and sent it over.
Chan said the FBI had a 50% success rate in having alleged election-related “disinformation” removed from platforms. He also said that they asked for the social companies’ algorithms so that they could probe the platform for potential violators of their TOS. They would also flag accounts they wanted action on that they thought were violating TOS.
Chan believes that he isn’t sweeping up Americans in his censorship net, but the judge reveals something I already knew—they swept up 929k tweets when they censored the “ReleaseTheMemo” hashtag, and I was the one WHO STARTED IT. In case you were wondering, I am American.
Chan testified that pressure from the HPSCI and SSCI caused social platforms to censor speech more aggressively. He testified that conversations with congressional staffers on potential legislation also may have played into it.
The CISA Defendants
Brian Scully was deposed for CISA. CISA regularly meets with social platforms. Scully leads the “MIS-dis-malinformation” team (MDM Team). Prior to it being called this, it was called the “Countering Foreign Influence” task force. Scully testified that CISA regularly did switchboard work, where they would take info in from states on alleged disinformation about elections and then work as a help desk to forward it along to platforms.
Scully tried to say that CISA was only sending things along so that the social companies could apply their terms, and that was their role, but the CISA website says the MDM serves as a “switchboard for routing disinformation concerns to social media platforms.”
Why does CISA need meetings to go over and review the TOS of social media platforms? Why are all of these government departments involved in those meetings?
They meet under the guise of halting you from being caught up in FOREIGN disinformation campaigns, which, truthfully, we know is just a catch-all for any speech they don’t agree with. This is really terrible.
There is a tangled web unfurled here of how the interns from CISA decided they needed an end run around the constitution, so they started up separate groups at universities FUNDED BY YOUR TAX DOLLARS that would be the thought police. It’s complicated, and I won’t thread it all, but it is detailed here in the filing. The judge gets it.
Funded by Your Tax Dollars
The private institutions would pick all of the things they wanted to censor, would send them via a ticketing system to CISA, and CISA would act as a mediator. They wrote reports and got together think tanks. They did all of this right out in public and proudly broadcast their meetings and plans.
CISA requested that social media companies send them a one-page doc that contained their content moderation rules that they could share with election officials. They included steps for flagging and reporting MDM. They flagged parody and joke accounts. They publicly announced they would step it up for 2024.
The DHS teams up with CISA as well, and in a draft copy of their “Homeland Security Review,” they detailed plans to target “inaccurate information” on a myriad of topics listed below.
- The Origins of COVID-19
- The Efficacy of the COVID-19 Vaccines
- Racial Justice
- The US Withdrawal from Afghanistan
- The nature of the US support of Ukraine.
This is where it got really creepy for me. Easterly: “We live in a world where people talk about alternative facts, post-truth, which I think is really, really dangerous if people get to pick their own facts.”
And then she tells everyone how your thoughts are actually a part of the government’s critical infrastructure… Cognitive Infrastructure…