May 22, 2023 – Missouri vs. Biden files motion for a temporary injunction against government censorship

In Email/Dossier Investigations by Katie Weddington

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:

A. What they did isn’t really censorship (mainly that they didn’t *force* the social media companies to take action)

B. 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.

As an added zing, they used book burning as their hypothetical- appeals directly to the left angry that we don’t want pornographic books in kids’ libraries.

In the very first sentence of the brief, the government filed to argue why there should NOT be a temporary injunction halting their communication and threats to social media companies- they hide behind the “Foreign” assaults on critical election infrastructure.

However, evidence obtained in this case demonstrates that the Federal government overwhelmingly targets DOMESTIC speech by American citizens.

Depositions and evidence obtained in the case prove that actors responsible for censorship admit that most of what they consider “misinformation” was DOMESTIC in nature, including from the EIP (Keep the EIP front of mind). (Read more: DC Undercover, 5/24/2023) (Archive)