23 States and District of Columbia File Amicus Briefs in Favor of Joe Biden and Government Censorship and Regulation of Speech i...
Twenty-three Democrat run states and the District of Columbia, the home of our nation’s capital, filed amicus briefs in support of government censorship and banning of free speech in the United States.
Twenty-three Democrat run states and the District of Columbia, the home of our nation’s capital, filed amicus briefs in support of government censorship and banning of free speech in the United States.
These 23 states and the District of Columbia filed amicus briefs in support of the Biden administration in the SCOTUS case is Murthy, et al v. Missouri, et al, 23-411 (Missouri v. Biden) case.
The states essentially argue that they have an interest in collaborating with tech companies to “encourage” the public to behave themselves and “discourage” the public from believing alleged “disinformation” or engaging in online predatory behavior. The clear message is that they believe that the government has the right to shut down and censor speech.
So much for their claim about Our Constitution they openly violate. Here is your sign they lost control of the narrative.
Despravation of rights under color of law. We have the evidence now. https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law
Q made 10 posts referring to "You must show them" (the truth).
https://qalerts.app/?q=must+show+them
The first one he posted:
u/#q4024
And the last:
u/#q4908
Amen, and thank you for this important reminder for all.
Here is the Justia Summary:
Here is the problem they have listed." a form of permissible government speech".
Thank you for sharing this. Then they contradict by claiming this : As to the NIAID officials, it is not apparent that they ever communicated with the social media platforms. Instead, the record shows, at most, that public statements by Director Anthony Fauci and other NIAID officials promoted the government’s scientific and policy views and attempted to discredit opposing ones—quintessential examples of government speech that do not run afoul of the First Amendment. Further, as for the State Department, while it did communicate directly with the platforms, so far, there is no evidence these communications went beyond educating the platforms on “tools and techniques” used by foreign actors.
they are
Amen