Tuesday, July 11, 2023 by Belle Carter
Editor-in-Chief of “UncoverDC” and host of the “Dark to Light” podcast Tracy Benz posted a recent development on the Missouri v. Biden FREE SPEECH case on Twitter. “The judge in the case has DENIED the stay on the temporary injunction,” the post said with an attachment of the recent court ruling file.
??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
The order stipulated that it was “ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the definition of “protected free speech” shall be amended to read as follows: “Protected free speech” means speech which is protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution in accordance with the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court.”
The ruling that U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty signed on July 10 in Monroe, Louisiana further ordered that the “defendant’s motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal and alternatively for administrative stay is DENIED.”
The new decision was a response to President Joe Biden’s appeal to the July 4 court ruling of Doughty on the Missouri v. Biden case, which immediately took effect after the verdict was proclaimed as the judge ordered a preliminary injunction to immediately stop the government from contacting and muscling social media companies as described in detail by the judge in a 155-page memo. (Related: Missouri v. Biden might be most important legal case in U.S. history.)
The case, in which the states of Missouri and Louisiana joined with five individuals – psychiatrist and university professor Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, Harvard and Stanford universities’ epidemiologists and professors of medicine Dr. Martin Kulldorf and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Gateway Pundit owner and St. Louis resident Jim Hoft, and co-director of Health Freedom Louisiana Jill Hines – sued the Biden administration for allegedly conspiring with and coercing social-media platforms “to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints and content.” This, the plaintiffs argued, constitutes government action to violate their First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
The plaintiffs presented evidence that the government suppressed constitutionally protected free speech on nine different topics: Hunter Biden’s “laptop from hell,” the lab-leak theory of the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) origin, the efficiency of masks and lockdowns, the efficiency of COVID-19 vaccines, election integrity in the 2020 presidential election, the security of voting by mail, parody content about government agencies and officials, negative posts about the economy and negative posts about the POTUS.
Biden has continuously denied his involvement in the “Biden crime family” illegal international business dealings despite massive shreds of evidence found in investigations. Also, Twitter owner Elon Musk has previously disclosed how former Twitter management bigwigs (whom he fired) were regularly coordinating with the government, making their platform an “extension of the government” or accomplice in imposing total control. Moreover, reports indicated White House Deputy Assistant to President Rob Flaherty leaned on Facebook to remove what he called “misinfo themes,” which included “claims about the side effects of vaccines.” Although Facebook said “vaccine-skeptical” content did not violate its policy, the company reduced the distribution of the content and prevented recommendations for Groups, Pages and Instagram accounts where that content was shared. Flaherty continued to hound the company, demanding “actions and changes.”
“If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true,” Doughty wrote, “the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”
The U.S. government agencies and officials included in the “enjoined and restrained” list include the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra and NIAID Acting Director Dr. Hugh Auchincloss (who succeeded Dr. Anthony Fauci after serving as his longtime deputy), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the surgeon general. It also included the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Justice, a long list of White House aides including Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and National Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department, along with specific officials and employees.
Bookmark FirstAmendment.news to read more developments on the ongoing free speech suppression case against the Biden administration.
Watch the video below that talks about the mainstream media denouncing Doughty’s decision against Biden’s “connivance with social media.”
This video is from the NewsClips channel on Brighteon.com.
Tagged Under: Tags: Biden crime family, big government, Big Tech, Censorship, Collusion, conspiracy, covid-19 vaccines, cyber war, deception, deep state, disinfo, fascism, First Amendment, free press, free speech, freedom, freedom of speech, glitch, insanity, Joe Biden, Judge Terry Doughty, lab-leak theory, laptop from hell, legal case, Liberty, misinfo, Missouri v Biden, politics, progress, protected free speech, rigged elections, Social media, speech police, tech giants, technocrats, temporary injunction, thought police, Tyranny, uprising, White House
COPYRIGHT © 2017 PROGRESS NEWS