July 12, 2023

After devastating slapdown for biden regime, regime asks judge to lift injunction. Hilarity ensues

If you were paying attention over the 4th of July you may have heard about a bombshell ruling in a lawsuit filed by two states against the corrupt biden regime.

Of course you were doing other things, and that's totally understandable.  Family and celebration now, deal with bombshell court rulings tomorrow.  I agree.

So on July 5th you checked the news and learned about the ruling, eh?  Nah, you didn't, so here's a summary: Two states in flyover country sued the regime for violating the First Amendment rights of citizens by suppressing "protected free speech."  

If you're a young American:  the Constitution doesn't allow the government to suppress free speech. That violates one of the most basic principles of our Constitution and should outrage all Americans.  The fact that you never even heard about this case, or the bombshell ruling on it, should tell you that the Mainstream Media doesn't want you to know about it, since it shows the corruption of the biden regime.

If you're skeptical about the last point, just reverse the roles:  If the Trump administration had used social media to censor posts it didn't like, the Media would have screamed bloody murder.  And they would have gloated for weeks about the ruling blasting the regime for censoring Americans.

But in this case, you didn't hear about it because it was a huge defeat for the biden regime, so the Mainstream Media decided to say as little as possible about it.

Plaintiffs introduced documentary evidence that the regime pressured social media to remove posts on the following topics:
1. Posts about the story of Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop 3 weeks before the 2020 election
2. Posts claiming the Covid-19 virus was modified in a Chinese lab
3. Posts claiming masks and lockdowns weren't helping
4. Posts claiming the Covid-19 vaccine didn't prevent people from getting Covid, thus were not a vaccine by the well-known definition;
5. Posts claiming significant election fraud in the 2020 election
6. Posts claiming huge numbers of mail-in ballots were forged
7. Parody posts about the government
8. Posts saying anything negative about the economy
9. ...and the topper: posts saying anything negative Biden.

The regime's attorneys bleated that plaintiffs were just "taking things out of context," and that none of the threatening emails and negative deposition testimony was real.  As a result, the judge asked the regime's attorneys several times during the hearing if the regime was claiming that the evidence that had been presented was fake.  After much hemming and hawing the regime's attorneys had to concede none of it was fake. They were just gaslighting the court.

For young Americans, "gaslighting" is a euphemism for "bullshitting."

The regime's conduct was so offensive that judge issued an injunction, ordering the regime not to do that anymore until the case could be heard.  But before the ruling was handed the regime knew what it would say, and had already prepared an appeal.

You don't believe that, because you have no idea how the regime really works.  Understandable.  In any case, the very next day the regime filed an appeal (meaning they'd already prepared it, meaning they knew exactly what the ruling and the injunction would say).

A day later the regime filed a motion to lift ("stay") the injunction barring federal agencies and officials from pressuring social media to censor posts by citizens that the regime didn't like.  

Two days ago the judge issued a "memo" denying the regime's motion to lift the injunction.  Now I want to call your attention to three arguments made by the regime to support its motion to lift the injunction--because those arguments show you how much the ruling bidenharrisDem regime has trashed your free-speech rights.

The first claim the regime makes (page 7) is that the states and individual citizen plaintiffs lack standing to sue.  This is the go-to claim when the regime knows it can't win a case on the merits, so it seeks to have the lawsuit thrown out.  It's how corrupt liberal judges threw out every lawsuit filed by citizens claiming massive election fraud in 2020.

If an American citizen can't sue alleging massive election fraud, who can sue?  The claim that states and individual citizens lack standing to sue is absurd--but the Supreme Court was too scared to intervene in 2020, so that move often works.

But in this case the judge cited case law to show the regime's "lack of standing" claim was utter horseshit.

Second, the regime's lackeys claimed plaintiffs hadn't shown that allowing the regime to continue to use social media to censor posts the regime doesn't like had caused them "irreparable harm." (p.8, top)

This is a normal consideration when trying to bust an injunction.  But if the government bars a person from speaking, what "harm" has that person suffered?  The person hasn't been physically injured or deprived of property, so where's the harm?

The judge made short work of that, saying being deprived of a constitutional right is harm by definition.

Finally, in a textbook demonstration of lack of self-awareness, the regime claimed that the court's injunction barring it from censoring speech it didn't like violated *its* right of free speech (p.8, paragraph C), and would thus cause *the biden regime* "irreparable injury."

Anyone with an IQ over 90 will immediately recognize that the regime's attorneys just shot down their own argument--made just ten lines earlier--that curtailing free speech *of citizens* does NOT constitute "irreparable harm."  Yet now it does.  Hmmm....

Which way to you corrupt assholes want to jump on this, eh?  The corrupt arguments the regime uses are so brazen as to defy belief!

In any case: the judge notes that his injunction does NOT prevent the biden regime from warning social media companies about posts that involving criminal activity, national security threats, extortion, foreign efforts to change election results and so on.  So the regime is free to pressure social media about *legitimate* concerns.  

What he orders the biden regime NOT to do is pressure social media to censor opinions, like "the covid jab the regime ordered all Americans to take is both ineffective and dangerous."

Or "There's a ton of evidence showing that Covid-19 could NOT have evolved through natural mutation of a harmless bat virus, but instead was altered by humans, in a CCP lab in Wuhan, China."

Or "Ivermectin and HCQ will cure the Chyna virus within days, at minimal cost and with no side effects.  And it was approved by your own FDA for human use 30 years ago!"

All those posts were taken down by pre-Musk Twatter lackeys.  Why?  Because they contradicted what the biden regime was bleating at us.

Prediction: The biden regime will continue to pressure social media to censor posts it doesn't like, by finding a tortured argument that allegedly links the post to one of the permitted exceptions noted above.  When the judge slaps that act down, the regime will just laugh, because there will be no punishment.

You can read the entire memo here.
 
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.301.0_1.pdf

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home