Missouri v Biden: A battle over YOUR right to free speech in the modern era of social media censorship.

THE COURTS HAVE DETERMINED THAT THE MISSOURI V BIDEN CASE THAT CITES VIOLATIONS OF THE 1ST AMENDMENT WILL GO TO TRIAL.

This is some great news. Not only have the courts determined that the plaintiffs have standing, but they also determined that the actions of the defendants meet all 5 criteria for STATE ACTION.

Hopefully this trial will bring to light the abhorrent behavior of the congressmen/women who in their official capacity tried to discredit the reporting done by journalists involved in the Twitter Files, as well as denying the allegations and characterizing them as misinformation, despite the overwhelming evidence provided within, as well as the evidence brought to light in discovery and depositions in this case.

Hopefully this will result in the dismantling of the CISA act as it pertains to DOMESTIC speech and cyber security issues pertaining to citizens speech on all platforms.

Hopefully those involved in the censorship will be highlighted in reports surrounding this case, as it’s critical for individuals to make informed ballot decisions.

STATE ACTION VS PRIVATE ACTION

Here is a segment from Kim Iverson that was my first time hearing about the update. Well worth watching as it touches on the idea of “State Action” vs ”Private Action”.

Here is that ruling:

Traditionally, the First Amendment imposes limitations only on “state action, not action by private parties.” Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 567 (1972). However, plaintiffs “may establish a First Amendment claim based on private conduct if that conduct ‘can fairly be seen as state action.’” Id. (quoting Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 838 (1982)).

There is no single test to identify state action and state actors, but the Supreme Court has “identified a host of facts that can bear on the fairness of such an attribution” of state action. Brentwood Acad. v. Tennessee Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288, 294, 296 (2001). Government action can exist in at least five circumstances:

(1) action that results from the State’s exercise of “coercive power,” id. at 295, 298 (quoting Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982));

(2) action that results from the state providing “significant encouragement, either overt or covert,” to a private action, id. (quoting Blum, 457 U.S. at 1004);

(3) action that results from a private actor operating as a willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents, id. (quoting Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 941 (1982));

(4) action that is entwined with governmental policies, or when the government is entwined in the management or control of the private action, id. (quoting Evans v. Newton, 382 U.S. 296, 299 (1966)); and

(5) action with specific features that combines to create a compelling case for state action, especially where a federal statute has immunized private conduct. Skinner v. Ry. Lab. Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 615 (1989).

COURTS STATE DEFINITIVELY THAT PLAINTIFFS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THAT FEDERAL COERCION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPPRESSION... LIKELY TO KEEP HAPPENING WITHOUT INTERVENTION

In this section I wanted to draw attention to the ruling that is referenced in this article written by

Aaron Kheriaty, MD. This Substack piece was the main inspiration behind this post.

Not only have the plaintiffs established standing to sue and sufficiently alleged that federal coercion is responsible for the suppression of their comments on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and YouTube, but it's likely to keep happening without intervention, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty wrote in a 77-page ruling that clears the way for a trial.

"Their allegations are more than complaints of past wrongs," the Monroe, La.-based judge said, referring to the non-state plaintiffs, including epidemiologists Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, coauthors of the anti-lockdown Great Barrington Declaration, and psychiatrist Aaron Kheriaty, fired by the University of California Irvine for refusing its COVID vaccine mandate.

"The threat of future censorship is substantial, and the history of past censorship is strong evidence that the threat of further censorship is not illusory or merely speculative," Doughty wrote.

The states have plausibly alleged the administration trampled on their "quasi-sovereign interests" in "protecting the freedom of expression of their residents" and enjoying "the benefits that are to flow from participation in the federal system," namely First Amendment rights, the judge said.

SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN 1ST AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS LISTED IN THE SUIT, AS WELL AS THEIR ROLE/INVOLVEMENT IN SAID ACTIONS

[Aaron Kheriaty, MD] — Attorneys General Bailey and Landry establish unconscionable Federal censorship activities – including, but not limited to:

• Fauci’s involvement in laundering lies into medical journals in an attempt to bury the lab-leak theory (to save himself from embarrassment given that he had been involved in gain-of-function research on coronaviruses).

• White House officials like Rob Flaherty, Andrew Slavitt, and Jennifer Psaki have engaged in a relentless pressure campaign, both in public and in private, to coerce platforms into censoring disfavored viewpoints on social media.

• Surgeon General Murthy and his staff coordinate closely with the White House in this pressure campaign, causing social-media platforms to scramble and assure federal officials that “we hear your call to do more” to censor disfavored viewpoints.

• The CDC flags specific social-media posts for censorship, organizes “BOLO” (“Be On the Lookout”) meetings to tell platforms what should be censored, and serves as the definitive fact-checker with final authority to dictate exactly what speech will be removed from social media.

• Dr. Fauci orchestrated an elaborate campaign of trickery and deception to induce social-media platforms to censor the lab-leak theory and other viewpoints he disfavors.

• The FBI, likewise, deliberately planted false information about “hack-and-leak” operations to deceive social-media platforms into censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story.

• The FBI, CISA, and the GEC collude with social-media platforms in hundreds of meetings about misinformation, and those agencies repeatedly flag huge quantities of First Amendment-protected speech to compliant platforms for censorship.

• CISA “switchboards” reports of so-called “misinformation” from state and local governments to platforms for censorship.

• CISA and the GEC are pervasively intertwined with massive government-private censorship enterprises like the Election Integrity Partnership, a collaboration among government, social-media platforms, and activist nonprofits to monitor, track, and censor enormous volumes of Americans’ speech on social media.

• Federal health officials in the Surgeon General’s Office, the CDC, and HHS collaborate in a similar censorship enterprise called the Virality Project, which procures the censorship of enormous quantities of First Amendment-protected speech.
  

All Defendants listed in Filings:

The Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 84] names sixty-seven defendants, who are hereinafter collectively referred to

as “Defendants”: Wally Adeyemo, Xavier Becerra, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Leah Bray, Yolanda Byrd, U.S. Census

Bureau, Elvis M Chan, Subhan Cheema, Christy Choi, U.S. Dept of Commerce, Carol Crawford, Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, Laura Dehmlow, Jay Dempsey, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, Jen Easterly, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Anthony Fauci, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Rob Flaherty, U.S. Food & Drug Administration, Alexis Frisbie, Kate Galatas, Kristin Galemore, Geoffrey Hale, Dept of Health & Human Services, Dept of Homeland Security, Mina Hsiang, Clarke Humphrey, Nina Jankowicz, Karine Jean-Pierre, Erica Jefferson, U.S. Dept of Justice, Brad Kimberly, Daniel Kimmage, Tericka Lambert, Timothy W Manning, Matthew Masterson, Alejandro Mayorkas, Gina McCarthy, Lorena Molina-Irizarry, Janell Muhammed, Michael Murray, Vivek H Murthy, Kristen Muthig, National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases, Joshua Peck, Lauren Protentis, Jennifer Rene Psaki, Dana Remus, Mark A Robbins, Laura Rosenberger, Courtney Rowe, Dori Salcido, Zachary Henry Schwartz, Brian Scully, Aisha Shah, Jennifer Shopkorn, Robert Silvers, Andrew Slavitt, Allison Snell, U.S. Dept of State, Samaruddin K Stewart, U.S. Dept of Treasury, Samantha Vinograd, Benjamin Wakana, Eric Waldo, Kim Wyman.

Additional Citations:

https://justthenews.com/.../cohesive-and-coercive...

-"Plaintiffs have alleged the full picture: a cohesive and coercive campaign by the Biden Administration and all of the Agency Defendants," from the CDC and FDA to the FBI and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, "to threaten and persuade social media companies to more avidly censor so-called 'misinformation,'" Doughty wrote.

https://nclalegal.org/.../ECF-224-Order-Granting-in-Part...

-full 77 page ruling by judge denying all but 1 motion to dismiss in the case

https://www.agjefflandry.com/.../212...

-The new filings document "1,423 facts" about White House and federal agency officials coercing and colluding with social media platforms to censor speech, AGs Andrew Bailey and Jeff Landry said in a joint release.

https://justthenews.com/.../professor-say-fired-univ...

-Professor says fired from Univ of Calif system for violating vaccine mandate, despite immunity. Kheriaty sought exemption on grounds he had virus this past summer.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/.../press-briefing-by-press.../

[Surgeon General Murthy]—“Fourth, we’re saying we expect more from our technology companies. We’re asking them to operate with greater transparency and accountability. We’re asking them to monitor misinformation more closely. We’re asking them to consistently take action against misinformation super-spreaders on their platforms.

You can read the full advisory at SurgeonGeneral.gov/HealthMisinformation.”

[Jen Psaki]—“And those of us who may have larger platforms, I think bear a greater responsibility to think about that. But the bottom line is all of us have an important role here to play, and technology companies have a particularly important role.

We know that the dramatic increase in the speed — speed and scale of spreading misinformation has, in part, been enabled by these platforms. So that’s why in this advisory today, we are asking them to step up. We know they have taken some steps to address misinformation, but much, much more has to be done. And we can’t wait longer for them to take aggressive action because it’s costing people their lives…

…Sure. Well, first, we are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team, given, as Dr. Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue of misinformation, specifically on the pandemic.

In terms of actions, Alex, that we have taken — or we’re working to take, I should say — from the federal government: We’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon General’s office. We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation. We’re working with doctors and medical professionals to connect — to connect medical experts with popular — with popular — who are popular with their audiences with — with accurate information and boost trusted content. So we’re helping get trusted content out there.”