AG's sue Biden over speech suppression

 Jazz Shaw:

The fact that the major social media platforms have had their thumbs on the scales in favor of liberal and Democratic causes has long been obvious to far more people than just Elon Musk. This has generally been attributed to the decidedly liberal bent in the leadership of those companies and the people they install to censor unapproved views. But have liberals in the federal government, specifically at the White House, been actively involved in those efforts to block speech under the guise of “fighting disinformation?” That’s the assertion of the Attorneys General from Louisiana and Missouri. They have jointly filed a suit against the Biden administration, claiming that Biden’s team has been working directly with Big Tech going back to the early days of the 2020 election, pressuring Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and others to take down dissenting opinions. (Washington Examiner)

The Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana accused President Joe Biden and other top government officials in a lawsuit Thursday of colluding with social media giants such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to censor and suppress speech under the guise of combating dangerous misinformation.

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry filed the suit in an attempt to demonstrate the Biden administration’s alleged work with Big Tech companies to suppress speech pertaining to COVID-19-related information, election integrity, and other topics unfairly.

The lawsuit claims that Biden and his supporters, during the 2020 election campaign and now in office, have directly worked with executives and employees of Big Tech companies to censor content related to controversial political debates over the past two years.

The suit specifically calls out Joe Biden personally, along with Jen Psaki and others, accusing them of collusion with the Big Tech oligarchs to suppress speech. As evidence, they point to emails exchanged between Anthony Fauci and Mark Zuckerberg regarding the dissemination of “disinformation” about COVID-19 on Facebook. Also mentioned are direct calls from Psaki while standing at the White House briefing lectern directed at the leaders of social media platforms, calling on them to do more to “combat disinformation.”

This is a serious accusation. The problem with doing something about big tech platforms censoring people’s views is that they are private companies and can largely do what they like. You can’t do very much about it unless you happen to have a spare $47 billion lying around to buy the company and change the policies yourself.

But if the federal government can be shown to have directly intervened to make that happen, it’s a violation of the First Amendment rights of all of the users of these platforms. It could easily be viewed as grounds for impeachment, assuming you could find the will among anyone in the swamp these days to impeach anyone not named “Trump.”

...

There is a big difference between expressing their views from a podium in the White House and calling a social media company and telling them to suppress someone else's speech.  If they did that to the NY Times or the Washington Post there would be a huge outcry.  Calls to "combat disinformation" are not the same as telling the media they disagree with what is being said on social media. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more

Bin Laden's concern about Zarqawi's remains

James Robbins: ... Bin Laden suggests that President Bush should allow Zarqawi’s body to be returned to his family in Jordan, but this is a matter that is up to the Jordanian government, which so far has not shown much interest in facilitating a homecoming. Bin Laden mocks King Abdullah II, calling him a Coalition minion, and asking “w hat scares you about Abu Musab after he’s dead? You know that his funeral, if allowed to happen, would be a huge funeral showing the extent of sympathy with the mujahedin.” A large crowd would definitely turn out, though most people would be on hand to demonstrate their anger and disgust. Last November’s hotel bombings in Amman , masterminded by Zarqawi, are still fresh in people’s memory, and mentioning them to Jordanians has the same visceral impact as memory of the 9/11 attacks does here. Jordan has adopted a zero-tolerance policy towards those who choose to mourn the country’s least favorite son, and four opposition members of parliament who paid con
Read more