A landmark ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Terry A. Doughty declares the Biden administration likely infringed upon the First Amendment during the COVID-19 pandemic by collaborating with tech companies to censor online discussions. The judge issued an injunction on July 4th, restricting White House officials and federal agencies from communicating with these companies regarding content moderation. This decision stems from lawsuits filed by Louisiana and Missouri, alleging the White House coerced tech platforms to suppress free speech.
The injunction names several officials, including cabinet members and press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, prohibiting their involvement in discussions with social media platforms aimed at stifling speech. Judge Doughty's ruling asserts these actions likely breached the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe lauded the decision as a fitting reprimand for the administration's overreach. Legal experts like OutKick founder Clay Travis believe the ruling will be difficult to overturn, highlighting the extensive evidence uncovered through the lawsuits.
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry emphasized the gravity of the situation, stating the discovered information should concern all Americans regardless of political affiliation. Judge Doughty’s opinion meticulously details how the government allegedly censored discussions on COVID-19 origins, vaccine policies, mask mandates, election issues, and the Hunter Biden laptop story. He likened the government's actions to an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth,” potentially representing the most significant attack on free speech in U.S. history. The judge underscored that the censorship disproportionately targeted conservative viewpoints, although the implications transcend partisan lines.
This ruling could significantly limit future interactions between tech companies and government officials, with exceptions for national security threats or criminal activity. Critics argue the decision could disrupt established cooperation between the government and social media platforms. Ratcliffe counters that this cooperation was abused by social media executives and government officials, with mainstream media complicit in suppressing free speech. He and Travis express confidence the ruling will withstand appeals, emphasizing the substantial evidence supporting the plaintiffs’ claims.
The Department of Justice declined to comment, while the White House, Google, Meta, and Twitter have not yet responded to requests for statements.
