Judge Denies Biden Request To Keep Meddling In Social Media

Judge Denies Biden Request To Keep Meddling In Social Media

A federal judge in Louisiana denied a request by the Biden DOJ to delay an order he issued last week which bans federal agencies from communicating with social media companies.

Judge Terry Doughty refused to pause his July 4 nationwide injunction,  as well as an alternative request for a seven-day pause while it petitions the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty (YouTube)

In his Monday ruling, Doughty defended his order against the DOJ’s claims that it’s overly broad and unclear in terms of what types of communications are no longer allowed. Doughty wrote that the government isn’t entitled to a delay in enforcing his order because they were likely to lose on the merits of the case, and slammed the DOJ for failing to identify a specific example of activity that would be hurt in the meantime.

While last week’s ruling involves several different agencies, “it is not as broad as it appears,” he wrote, adding “It only prohibits something the Defendants have no legal right to do — contacting social media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner, the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms. It also contains numerous exceptions.”

The Biden administration wants to put the communications ban on hold while it challenges Doughty’s 155-page opinion concluding the government likely violated the First Amendment in its efforts to persuade tech companies to take steps to limit the spread of misinformation and fake accounts, especially during the pandemic.

In asking for a reprieve, government attorneys argued the judge’s order was too broad, unclear and would interfere with the ability of federal agencies to work with tech companies “on initiatives to prevent grave harm to the American people and our democratic processes.” -Bloomberg

The order bars the feds from “urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing” social media companies to remove or restrict content protected by the First Amendment – however exemptions exist for communications about criminal activity, threats to national security, election integrity issues, and other “permissible public government speech.”

The case is State of Louisiana v. Biden, 3:22-cv-01213, US District Court, Western District of Louisiana (Monroe)

🚨🚨BREAKING- Missouri v. Biden –

The judge in the case has DENIED the stay on the temporary injunction. pic.twitter.com/Ki1hHd2vmK

— Tracy Beanz (@tracybeanz) July 10, 2023

*********

(TLB) published this article from ZeroHedge as compiled and written by Tyler Durden

Header featured image (edited) credit: Biden/Alex Wong/Getty Images

Emphasis added by (TLB)

••••

••••

Stay tuned to …

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.