Suing for Freedom of Speech: Missouri v. Biden By Charles Taylor (Florida)
The case of Missouri v. Biden is slowly moving through the US court system, having been originally filed on May 5, 2022. The case is now a large class action, accusing the US government of violating civil liberties, by coercing social media companies to censor citizens, as well as colluding with them to do exactly that. Topics of concern, such as the Covid mandates, and the Hunter Biden laptop revelations, were topics the government forced social media to censor. This is no mere grab bag of private citizens, but includes two US states, Missouri and Louisiana, so the stakes are high. At the present stage discovery is occurring, and the government has strived to block much of this. As detailed below, they have lost so far on this. Thus, the case could prove to be important depending on what material is uncovered. It could give Democrats an election surprise.
https://www.uncoverdc.com/2023/05/24/the-lead-up-to-the-hearing-missouri-v-biden/
“Missouri v. Biden was filed on May 5, 2022. Since it was initially filed, it has taken quite a trip through the court system. The complaint has been amended 3 times, with the most recent Amendment being to transform the case into a class suit – due to the overwhelming evidence of broad harm to the constitutional rights of all Americans. You can view the docket by using this link. Part I:
The complaint alleged that the US Government was not only threatening and coercing social media companies to censor Americans on social media, but they were also working WITH social media companies to accomplish that goal.
It alleged that topics surrounding COVID-19, the origins of COVID, the Great Barrington Declaration, election integrity concerns, the COVID shot, the Hunter Biden laptop story (and more) were under scrutiny by the White House and other government agencies – and that the government had very publicly threatened to take action against social media companies should they not act to censor viewpoints on those topics that were disfavored by the government.
The Plaintiffs in the case (the states of Missouri and Louisiana, along with several other private plaintiffs) moved for expedited discovery to be able to obtain a limited set of evidence as well as depositions of certain officials. They argued that this evidence would allow them to make the case for a temporary injunction to stop the government from infringing on the first amendment rights of Plaintiffs and their citizens.
Unlike what many have come to expect, the judge GRANTED the motion for expedited discovery and depositions. A struggle ensued between the Government and the Plaintiffs, with the government fighting against the judge in this case (Judge Terry Doughty) to stop discovery and certain plaintiffs from being deposed. They took those complaints to the 5th Circuit of Appeals and a court in Virginia – a court that *usually* is friendly to the government.
At the appellate court level, the government argued that NO ONE should have to leave their government jobs to sit for lengthy depositions in this case, but certainly not the HEAD of CISA, for example.
The appellate court wouldn’t play ball with the government and remanded the case back to Louisiana with some guidance on how the judge should proceed. If memory serves me right, this happened three times.
One particularly interesting exchange came with the deposition of former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki. She made threats to social media companies from the podium. They sought to depose her about those threats. She left the office. The government said they had no responsive documents to explain her comments. So Missouri and Louisiana said, “Then we have to depose Jen Psaki.”
The court agreed and ruled that now private citizen Psaki needed to testify. The government and Psaki- represented by Rhee – went to a court in Virginia to try to get THAT judge to stop the deposition.
This went back to Louisiana after the Virginia judge said, “You won’t like how I rule on this, and your argument is terrible, so I’m sending it back to the judge who SHOULD be making this decision. The judge in Louisiana again decided Psaki should be deposed IF the government didn’t have any responsive docs from the press office. Somehow, those docs must’ve appeared.
All along the way, the government has lost- over and over again. They were also caught hiding discovery materials – the judge rapped them and ordered them to produce or else – which they did.
Another interesting tidbit – once Fauci was deposed, the government sought to seal all depositions and video – along with discovery materials arguing that the government “employees” were being threatened and harassed and faced imminent harm but couldn’t produce any examples. The judge ruled against sealing anything but personal info like addresses.
So far, I’ve only really discussed the procedural happenings — however, what limited expedited discovery, in this case, has exposed (separate and apart from the Twitter files) is unprecedented and abhorrent.
The most widespread and troubling discovery? CISA has designated YOUR THOUGHTS part of the government’s infrastructure. They call it “cognitive infrastructure.”
They argue they can regulate what you think as they consider it under their purview.
Recently the Plaintiffs filed their motion to support the temporary injunction – a hearing we have been waiting on for nearly a year because of the government’s delays and obfuscations. It was 1,200 FACTS about government-coordinated censorship.
The government responded with a 1200-page monstrosity arguing they did it all – but because of foreign actors and the “safety” of the American people – lest they be exposed to harmful “misinformation.” Then they asked the judge to give them another week and postpone this hearing – again, arguing they wouldn’t have time to digest the Plaintiff’s response to their last filing.
The judge told them he wouldn’t be postponing this hearing again. A few days ago, the Plaintiffs filed their response – and it is an encyclopedia of their expedited and limited discovery so far. I want to explain why this case is NOT like any other we have seen.
This isn’t what we are used to — a weak judge capitulating to the government. In fact, the judge hasn’t capitulated ONCE. Neither has the appellate court, and neither has a DC court.
What is the remedy sought? Well, if the temporary injunction is granted (I am nearly certain it will be), the remedy is to bar the government from working with social media companies to flag and censor posts. They will also be barred from working through NGOs to do the same. (Here’s looking at you, EIP and Stanford internet observatory, and Atlantic Council) – no FBI task force inside Facebook or Twitter, no emails back and forth about “vaccine misinfo” and how to stop it. The government has to Cease.
What follows will be a detailed breakdown of the latest filing, an answer to the government’s excuses for why
- What they did isn’t really censorship (mainly that they didn’t *force* the social media companies to take action)
- Why what they did is “OK.” The guise of national security and “safety” and protecting Americans from “Mis, dis, and Malinformation.”
They begin with a hypothetical. They do this because the government tried to make all this behavior “Ok” by claiming that the Trump administration did the same thing.
That is an exercise in futility- the plaintiffs don’t care WHAT administration did it, only that it happened, and besides- the Trump White House directed NONE of this activity.”
Comments