Federal court strikes down Biden admin’s online censorship collusion with Big Tech
The ruling limits Big Tech and the Biden administration's collusion to silence contrarian views.

EXTRACTS:
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals curtailed the ability of the federal government to work together with Big Tech companies to censor free speech.

The September 8 ruling forbids President Biden’s team from using companies such as Facebook and X, formerly known as Twitter, to act as a censor to advance his agenda and prevent speech that questions the safety and efficacy of COVID shots or raises concerns about the integrity of the 2020 election.

In one instance, a Biden staffer quickly convinced Instagram to remove an account that parodied Dr. Anthony Fauci. Plaintiffs included silenced contrarians, such as Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Dr. Martin Kulldorff....

The September 8 ruling resulted in a modified prohibition.

“Defendants, and their employees and agents, shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech,” a new injunction against some Biden officials now states.

“That includes, but is not limited to, compelling the platforms to act, such as by intimating that some form of punishment will follow a failure to comply with any request, or supervising, directing, or otherwise meaningfully controlling the social-media companies’ decision-making processes,” the injunction continues.

Those officials include the Surgeon General and the White House, which were guilty of “coercive” statements, according to the three-judge panel.

The ruling also cited the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for encouraging social media censorship.

“In short, when the platforms acted, they did so in response to the FBI’s inherent authority and based on internal policies influenced by FBI officials,” the opinion stated. “Taking those facts together, we find the platforms’ decisions were significantly encouraged and coerced by the FBI.”...

“In an unprecedented, historic decision, the Fifth Circuit has recognized that the conduct of the White House, CDC, Surgeon General, and FBI violated Americans’ First Amendment rights,” attorney Jenin Younes stated. “The government cannot coerce or encourage social media companies to censor views it dislikes. This decision vindicates the Plaintiffs’ rights and protects the free speech of all Americans.”

“The New Civil Liberties Alliance celebrates this landmark victory for our clients, Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff and Aaron Kheriaty, and Ms. Jill Hines,” the group stated. “At the government’s request, the Fifth Circuit stayed the order for 10 days to give the government time to petition for a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“The Biden Administration’s years-long censorship campaign has suppressed perspectives contradicting government-approved views on hotly disputed topics like whether natural immunity to Covid-19 exists, Covid-19 vaccine concerns, the virus’s origins, and mask mandate efficacy,” the group stated.

“The vast, coordinated censorship campaign has silenced public voices including influential doctors and scientists. Drs. Bhattacharya, Kulldorff and Kheriaty, and Ms. Hines have all been blacklisted, shadow-banned, de-boosted, throttled, and censored on social media.” /

CONTINUE HERE:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/federal-court-strikes-down-biden-admins-online-censorship-collusion-with-big-tech/

#ThreeEleven #Biden #dictatorship #censorship #CDC #FDA #FBI #legality

(continued from above)

...China, however, resorts to authoritarian measures, including “quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens” and the “instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders.” These measures “save millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post-pandemic recovery.”

Other nations react much the same way:

China’s government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets. Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems—from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty—leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power.

“Citizens” at first accept the new draconian regime and are “eager for top-down direction and oversight.” The first-world imposes “biometric IDs for all citizens” as well as “tighter regulation of key industries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests.”...

...There is a rise in “virulent nationalism”; the “top-down rules and norms” harm “entrepreneurial activity,” and in the longer term there is political unrest:

By 2025, people seemed to be growing weary of so much top-down control and letting leaders and authorities make choices for them.

Wherever national interests clashed with individual interests, there was conflict. Sporadic pushback became increasingly organized and coordinated, as disaffected youth and people who had seen their status and opportunities slip away—largely in developing countries—incited civil unrest. In 2026, protestors in Nigeria brought down the government, fed up with the entrenched cronyism and corruption. Even those who liked the greater stability and predictability of this world began to grow uncomfortable and constrained by so many tight rules and by the strictness of national boundaries. The feeling lingered that sooner or later, something would inevitably upset the neat order that the world’s governments had worked so hard to establish.

“Lock Step” is a world in which “philanthropic organizations … face hard choices” and “Many governments … place severe restrictions on the program areas and geographies that international philanthropies can work in.” Also too, “organizations interested in promoting universal rights and freedoms” are “blocked at many nations’ borders.”...

Not only is “Lock Step” not a sequence of events even remotely desired by the Rockefeller Foundation or the GBN, but there is also nothing all that prescient about its details. They are lifted, very transparently, from the Chinese response to SARS. After an initial period of reluctance to acknowledge the outbreak in 2003, China responded with extreme aggression, quarantining not only contacts of documented cases but also imposing proto-lockdowns on select hospitals and housing units, and closing all manner of public-facing businesses and institutions in affected areas. They even mobilised the population in a “People’s War” against the virus to encourage community-level case reporting, and they established temperature screenings at the entrances to public buildings and offices. Community masking became the norm across Asia.

Theses of “Operation Lockstep” as a pandemic plan for the Corona era represent a complete misreading of SFTID....

CONTINUE HERE:
https://www.eugyppius.com/p/everything-you-never-wanted-to-know

#ThreeEleven #OperationLockstep #Plandemic #China #SARS #Rockefellers