The Biden administration took a massive hit in their quest to collude with social media platforms to censor certain types of speech.
According to The Defender, presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Children’s Health Defense (CHD) scored a significant legal victory after a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction that prevents the Biden administration "from coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to suppress or censor online content containing protected free speech."
The lawsuit was filed in May 2022 and was originally known as Missouri v. Biden.
It was filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, along with multiple individual plaintiffs. The judge consolidated the cases last year.
The favorable ruling for Kennedy and the CHD came as a result of Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
Notably, Judge Doughty simultaneously issued a stay on the injunction while a similar case, Murthy v. Missouri, plays out in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The high court is currently scheduled to hear arguments regarding the preliminary injunction in the Murthy v. Missouri case on March 18.
The landmark case Murthy v. Missouri is one of the most pivotal free speech cases to reach the Supreme Court in decades. @EricSell explains how every American’s right to freely express their opinions is at stake. WATCH: pic.twitter.com/0pbfzqyFt3
— Center for American Liberty (@Liberty_Ctr) February 9, 2024
The Defender noted:
In his 24-page ruling, Judge Doughty found that several of the defendants in the Kennedy et al. v. Biden lawsuit were violating the plaintiffs’ free speech rights under the First Amendment, causing irreparable harm. He ordered them to cease these violations.
The suit was filed on behalf of the 80% of social media users who receive their news via social media.
CHD president Mary Holland celebrated the federal judge's ruling, calling it an "an important victory for the U.S. Constitution."
"In a thorough decision, Judge Doughty reasoned that the plaintiffs do have ‘standing’ or the right to sue and be heard; that the defendants have engaged in coercion or significant encouragement to censorship and joint action with social media platforms; and that the court is required to issue the preliminary injunction," Holland said.
She added, "Further, because it is well-established that violations of free speech rights constitute irreparable injury, the Court acted even before an ultimate decision from the Supreme Court in Murthy v. Missouri. Judge Doughty wrote: ‘This Court … finds the balance of equities and the public interest strongly favors the issue of a preliminary injunction.’"
Now it's up to the Supreme Court to dictate which direction this will go in.
