Judge Halts Government Censorship in Landmark Free Speech Case

by: Tracy Beanz
2023-07-11
Source: UncoverDC
09/19/2023

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 case alleges several topics of censorship, and more have been added as the case has gone on, but here is the list. All of these elements have already been PROVEN in limited expedited discovery.

The topics censored and suppressed:

1. The Hunter Biden Laptop Story prior to the 2020 election

2. The lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origin

3. The efficacy of masks and COVID lockdowns

4. The efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines

5. Election Integrity in the 2020 Presidential Election

6. The security of voting by mail

7. Parody Content about the government

8. Negative posts about the economy

9. Negative posts about Joe Biden.

It’s important to read the footnote here, as the judge questioned the government about this during the hearing. They allege in their reply that the Plaintiffs are just taking EVERYTHING out of context and that none of the threatening emails and negative deposition testimony was *actually* what we all read and see. The judge asked the government several times during the hearing if they were alleging that the evidence that had been presented was fake. After hemming and hawing, they had to concede none of it was fake. They were just gaslighting….everyone. And poorly.

What comes next is a meticulous breakdown of a majority of the facts presented in the case so far, separated out by the defendant. I struggle here with how to best cover this because it's voluminous and deserves to be read. I think the best way is to choose highlights of each…

The White House

On 1/23/21, right after Biden took office, the White House asked Twitter to remove a tweet from the platform. I BEG anyone on the left to come and try to dispute that this single instance is grounds for a win in this suit. They also asked to have other tweets like it removed.

Rob Flaherty

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.

On 2/7/21, Twitter granted the White House access to its support portal because they were getting too many censorship requests from the White House and wanted to streamline the process. So many people were reaching out with censorship requests Twitter said they were “bombarded.”

On 2/8/21, Flaherty assumed his role as a quasi “Trust and Safety” executive for Facebook, demanding to know specifics about how Facebook was removing content that he didn’t like. It would only get much worse from here.

On 2/9/21, Flaherty emailed Facebook, accusing them of causing political violence because they didn’t censor COVID-19 claims. Facebook responded that “vaccine-skeptical” didn’t violate its policies. However, in order to satisfy the White House because of their urging, they would limit the distribution of content the White House didn’t like.

It is important to note, that had it not been for the White House pressure, Facebook WOULD NOT have taken any action on this content, as it DID NOT violate its policies.

Facebook was beholden to Rob Flaherty. He often required they provide him detailed information and reports about “misinformation” on the COVID shot that was NOT being censored. He was very interested in censoring ANY SPEECH that may contribute to “vaccine hesitancy.”

But it wasn’t only Facebook. On 3/1/21, Flaherty and the HHS had a meeting with Twitter. Correspondence between them about the meeting shows Twitter responding to THEIR requests to censor “misleading information” on Twitter.

Vivek Murthy

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.

Here come the threats…Flaherty’s hubris has proven the downfall here. He let Facebook know the White House was seeking more aggressive action on “borderline” content.

“We want to know how we can help…” you censor more content that we don’t like, Facebook. We are PARTNERS, and you are ACCOUNTABLE TO US. There is no way to read this differently.

Andy Slavitt

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 government wants you to believe this was all just SUGGESTIONS, that there was no coercion, and that these social media companies acted to censor content that didn’t violate their corporate policies because they wanted to.

After a meeting with the White House in person, Facebook emailed Flaherty, letting him know that in *response to White House demands* they would be censoring, removing, and reducing the vitality of content that discouraged vaccines that “does not contain actionable misinformation.”

It gets much worse. Flaherty responded to a detailed report Facebook had provided with more threats, blaming Facebook for January 6th and also demanding they censor Tomi Lahren and Tucker Carlson. But there is something really important here...

Judge Doughty correctly describes the events on 1/6/21.

People often argue with me that social media companies WANT to censor. It really isn’t often the case. The White House pounded Facebook over and over on the Tucker post about the J&J vaccine, WHICH WAS TRUE, and they finally acquiesced, demoting it so it reached 50% of the audience it would have. They maintained throughout that it didn’t violate policy, but the White House wasn’t having it.

The White House demanded to know why Alex Berenson wasn’t suspended yet and also threatened YouTube that the President was concerned about what the platform was/wasn’t doing to stem “vaccine hesitancy.”

Can I just insert a little personal opinion for a moment? Does it bother anyone else that the government is SO CONCERNED with making sure you don’t think twice about injecting a novel medical intervention into your body?? I mean, if you just think about that for a second….

The White House sent Facebook a manual on how they should alter their policies after someone analyzed the platform and said it was playing a “major role” in the spread of vaccine misinformation……

Facebook was so terrified of the White House that they proactively sent them an email APOLOGIZING for some content that DID NOT break their rules going viral before they could act to remove it. They said they need to “do better.” It was truly an abusive relationship, with the White House as the abuser.

Facebook even tried to push back against the censorship demands that the White House requested, sharing that experts were telling them that the actions they were taking would result in making hesitancy WORSE because people would start to question why so much content was being removed. But they continued censorship because the government demanded they do so.

Then they took it public. Vivek Murthy and Jen Psaki began OPENLY threatening social media companies from the podium at pressers.

A few days later, Joe Biden came out and accused Facebook of “killing people,” and WH Comms director Bedingfield threatened accountability using Section 230 as a cudgel.

The White House also demanded that Twitter remove a parody about Jill Biden. Twitter pushed back, as the video didn’t violate its policies. Twitter kept up the fight against removal, but after pressure over a period of days, they finally removed it….

The Judge acknowledges that the topics above aren’t the only ones that the White House was concerned with, and evidence proves they tied the censorship demands to serious consequences if they weren’t followed. Also on the list? Climate change, gender discussions, abortion, and economic policy.

Don’t say anything that could offend, well, almost anyone on the left. The White House created a task force to police this and “confer with technology experts” and threatened platforms with adverse legal consequences if they didn’t censor aggressively enough.

This is BLATANTLY unconstitutional.

Flaherty didn’t like a community note about gas prices and also wanted to know how Facebook would be advertising the fact that the FDA “approved” the COVID shot. The misinformation about that caused millions of people to get the shot. How many people would still be unharmed and/or alive had the White House not turned social media companies into advertising agencies for Big Pharma? Based on a LIE about FDA approval?

It is important to note that all of the above was gleaned from extremely LIMITED discovery. In fact, in one order, the judge made sure to remind the government how much broader discovery would be when we got to trial. What you have just read is ONLY the basic censorship activities from the WHITE HOUSE.

The Surgeon General’s Office

Eric Waldo

Eric Waldo from Vivek Murthy’s office was deposed in the expedited discovery. He is no longer working for the Surgeon General’s office.

Renee Diresta

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.

Murthy and his office were in constant communication with social platforms demanding more action to censor what they defined as “misinformation.” Waldo testified that Murthy used his “bully pulpit” to pressure Social Media companies to censor speech.

Murthy’s office released a document that detailed how social media companies should change their policies and blamed them for the “poison,” what Murthy referred to as “disinformation.” He went on to praise his relationship with the Virality Project. Further evidence will go on to prove their close partnership.

Murthy’s discussions and comments about the close partnership with the Stanford Internet Observatory and Virality Project are important. The government has argued these institutions were working alone. That is false. The government both funds and closely collaborates with private organizations to censor American speech in ways that they could not blatantly do officially, even though what they did officially was bad enough.

Murthy and others were constantly pressuring platforms to remove content that they didn’t like but didn’t violate any policies. As discussed above, they would also write papers and pressure platforms to change their TOS under the threat of regulatory action.

The Surgeon General's office was demanding detailed reports from social platforms on their work to censor and also giving tight timelines to turn it around. This is corporate fascism.

I also want to point out—I am doing a fairly deep dive here, and I want everyone to remember that this is the JUDGE writing out the fact pattern of the case. This isn’t an attorney for one side making an argument; it is the judge demonstrating the evidence he is using to make his ruling. This will be going to the appeals court. They will read it.

Facebook was so exhausted from the attacks lobbed at them that they finally requested the government TELL THEM what was misinformation. This happened as Murthy was constantly publicly chastising and threatening them on social media and in the general media.

The Center for Disease Control and the Deposition of Carol Crawford

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.

Crawford prompted Facebook to start sending her internal reports about conversations and topic trends on Meta. Crawford engaged the CENSUS BUREAU to help her police these topics across all of social media. The Census Bureau.

The CDC and Census Bureau were meeting with Facebook weekly to “debunk” what are now well-known adverse events related to the COVID vaccines. They would provide Facebook with the “correct” information, and Facebook would act to remove content that didn’t fit in that bucket.

The CDC was directly flagging posts for removal and had access to a special portal that Facebook set up specifically for the government to submit “problem” tickets so that Facebook could act to remove posts from the platform. It gets worse as we move on. This isn’t even the worst of it. Wait for CISA.

The CDC was working hard to debunk its own adverse events reporting system for vaccines. Facebook reached out to them, asking how they should handle it. The CDC was concerned because PEOPLE WERE USING VAERS DATA to alert others that the vaccines weren’t safe, and CDC wanted EVERYONE with a needle in their arm. This is EVIL.

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 CDC wanted anyone who said these things banned.

The Census Bureau was very involved in meetings with Google/YouTube and had been previously meeting with them to combat “misinformation” surrounding the 2020 census. They were now brought in to help with vaccine issues and the “COVID Misinfo Project.”

The CDC met with all social platforms and had “BOLO meetings” where they would flag topics that social platforms should “be on the lookout for” and remove.

The NIAID

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

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

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…