GOVERNMENT "EMERGENCY" CONTROL OVER SOCIAL MEDIA CHALLENGED

Unlike their more authoritarian rivals, Western societies continue to have legal frameworks that can be used to challenge government or Deep State power. 

The latest case is a preliminary injunction by a federal judge in Louisiana ordering federal agencies to refrain from pressuring social-media companies on censorship, as happened during the lockdown when a virtual "state of emergency" existed.   

As reported by the Wall Street Times:

A federal judge ruled that the Biden administration likely trampled on the First Amendment in trying to eliminate what it saw as disinformation on social media, issuing a broad preliminary injunction limiting the federal government from policing online content.

In a 155-page ruling issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty of Louisiana barred White House officials and multiple federal agencies from contacting social-media companies with the purpose of suppressing political views and other speech normally protected from government censorship.

The case was prompted by the Biden government's actions against the Great Barrington Declaration, published on October 4, 2020. This was a critique by medical professionals of lockdown policies, which highlighted the damaging physical and mental health impacts of lockdowns.

This was immediately censored on social media and "scrubbed" from the internet by Google, Facebook, Twitter, and others at the behest of Dr Fauci and others in the government.

But the injunction also takes aim at several other examples of heavy-handed state censorship reminiscent of Communist China or Putinist Russia, which rode in on the tail of the Covid censorship (although some of them pre-dated it):

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants suppressed conservative-leaning free speech, such as: (1) suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the 2020 Presidential election; (2) suppressing speech about the lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origin; (3) suppressing speech about the efficiency of masks and COVID-19 lockdowns; (4) suppressing speech about the efficiency of COVID-19 vaccines; (5) suppressing speech about election integrity in the 2020 presidential election; (6) suppressing speech about the security of voting by mail; (7) suppressing parody content about Defendants; (8) suppressing negative posts about the economy; and (9) suppressing negative posts about President Biden.

Next maybe something should be done about the constant and relentless shadow-banning of legitimate, non-criminal content critical of our society, like that which appears here at NeoKrat.