nortex97 said:

---

🚨🚨BREAKING - Missouri v. Biden

The 5th circuit has placed an administrative stay on the injunction until oral arguments on appeal, which they have expedited. pic.twitter.com/gX1eml9FuN

— Tracy Beanz (@tracybeanz) July 14, 2023

Sigh…grumble, grumble.

---

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Elections matter. The 5th Circuit used to be reliably conservative - as was the 4th. No longer.

---

Aggie Jurist said:

---

You're right BMX. I practice in the 4th. I thought I'd seen a couple of nominees get through in the 5th - I was incorrect. Disappointing stay nonetheless.

---

Quote:

---

The Justice Department's request for a temporary halt was granted by the three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, made up of Clinton-appointee Carl E. Stewart, Obama-appointee James E. Graves and Trump-appointee Andrew S. Oldham.The halt means that, for now, Biden administration officials can resume contact with social media companies.

---

pic.twitter.com/mXyEzgAapW

— Tracy Beanz (@tracybeanz) July 24, 2023

The @FBI uses FISA to spy on innocent citizens and build unlawful intel cases.
Substantial compliance improvements? You are spying on members of Congress! No different than a wife beater claiming he improved because he only gave her a black eye this time instead of a broken jaw. https://t.co/jkcDHpTwYU

— Steve Friend (@RealStevefriend) July 31, 2023

What did the Biden White House want removed?

A meme.

That’s right, even memes weren’t spared from the Biden White House’s censorship efforts. pic.twitter.com/6BhDxTHsUi

— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) July 27, 2023

Check out my latest for @UncoverDC -

Facebook nailed the coffin a bit more. https://t.co/sA2J3K3b2R

— Tracy Beanz (@tracybeanz) July 31, 2023

nortex97 said:

---

Check out my latest for @UncoverDC -

Facebook nailed the coffin a bit more. https://t.co/sA2J3K3b2R

— Tracy Beanz (@tracybeanz) July 31, 2023

---

🚨🚨🚨THREAD: I will be live-tweeting today's Fifth Circuit hearing in Missouri v. Biden. With Edith Brown and Willett, panel is looking great. 1/ pic.twitter.com/uaCJgRUpux

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) August 10, 2023

15/ No: Reason crafting injunction was hard b/c Government is doing a shit load of censorship

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) August 10, 2023

He is absolutely lying. The cursing was in coercion to remove posts. It ALSO happened with instagram.

— Tracy Beanz (@tracybeanz) August 10, 2023

Biden’s lawyer seriously insinuated COVID caused a lot in the world to change, and thus, government censorship is permissible.

— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) August 10, 2023

Biden's lawyer asserted that they have never once threatened social media companies into censoring free speech.

He must be suffering from memory loss. Here's a recap:

— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) August 10, 2023

Jen Psaki spouted from the WH podium that social media companies would lose their Section 230 immunity if they didn't work with the feds to remove disfavored speech.

— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) August 10, 2023

Another judge called out Biden's lawyer, noting that "You talk about these meetings [between the feds and social media companies] as if they're friendly."

— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) August 10, 2023

The same judge then asked Biden's lawyer if hypothetically, it matters if the federal government knowingly censors true speech if it disagrees with the government's narrative (i.e. COVID-19).

The government unabashedly said, "No."

— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) August 10, 2023

Some Senator from Colorado just proposed a bill to give half a billion dollars a year to a new federal commission tasked with censoring the internet and social media.

It’s about as un-American as it can be.

let’s take a look:

1/9 https://t.co/k4EDC0ml3Z pic.twitter.com/9o0t4dQ18Q

— joshua steinman (🇺🇸,🇺🇸) (@JoshuaSteinman) August 11, 2023

Re the question of when will there be a decision. The short answer is shrug. 7th Cir had internal rule 3 months, but this is expedited. Don't think any "rule" (i.e. guidelines--it's a federal judge, whatchagonna do impeach him for a rule a bunch of judges made), for expedited… https://t.co/Vt1hyOCTRv

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) August 11, 2023

Quote:

---

Federal officials love censoring people. To be fair, every government does and has since man has walked the Earth.

That's why the Founders wrote the First Amendment, and it is no accident that it came first in the Bill of Rights, followed closely by the right to keep and bear arms. There is no freedom at all if there is no freedom to think and speak as one will.

Only July 4thobviously not a date chosen by accidentDistrict Court Judge Terry Doughty slapped a restraining order on the government prohibiting its collusion with social media companies to censor Americans' speech. The injunction stemmed from a lawsuit by Missouri and Louisiana demanding that the federal government stop pressuring social media companies to shut Americans up on issues.

The Biden Administration is deeply upset that they are losing one of the key tools they have to impose a false consensus. They already functionally control most of the MSM and social media is one of the few places that alternative viewpoints can be propagated. With the 2024 election right around the corner, the government is concerned that not everybody will be forced to hail Joe Biden as a loving father and savior of American democracy.

Having appealed the injunction to the Fifth Circuit, the Justice Department's Civil Division attorney Daniel Tenny faced a hostile audience. The panel of judges appeared appropriately skeptical of Tenny's contention that the case was meritless, moot, and brought by ineligible plaintiffs. Worse for him, Tenny got what amounts to a tongue-lashing from the panel.

---

Dark to Light: Missouri v. Biden and AG Jeff Landry https://t.co/IxaNuJgZIU @tracybeanz @UncoverDC @QuiteFrankly @JacobLandryLA #darktolight #darktolightwithfrankbeanz #darktolightpodcast

— Tracy Beanz (@tracybeanz) August 11, 2023

Quote:

---

Matt Taibbi's reporting on this at Racket News yesterday was likewise excellent. I especially appreciated his colorful account of our brilliant lawyer, John Sauer. A few excerpts:

Quote:

---

Early in the afternoon, a three-judge panel met to decide whether or not to revoke a stay of Judge Terry Doughty's sweeping July 4th order barring a battery of government agencies from contacting social media companies about content moderation. Biden administration counsel Daniel Bentele Hahs Tenny was under fire from the jump.

It was hard not to feel for Tenny. Sitting across from him was a packed table of anxious plaintiffs' attorneys, including Missouri's garrulous, tornado-like former Solicitor General John Sauer the driving force behind the Missouri v. Biden legislation as well as the current officeholder, a lean, plain-spoken lawyer with Jimmy Stewart vibes named Josh Devine. Tenny, an ashen, slouching figure, was alone. In a case of major historical import, likely headed to the Supreme Court, the federal government hadn't even sent another lawyer to keep him company. Staring down at his table, he looked like Napoleon Dynamite at lunch.

Called first, Tenny read a speech. He made it through the first thirty seconds well enough, arguing that Doughty's July 4th order would leave the government "powerless" to discourage social media companies from disseminating "untrue" statements in the event of a natural disaster. Then, almost right away, he stepped in it.

"To take another example," Tenny went on. "If… a government official were to conclude that it was likely, although not certain, that posts on social media were part of a criminal conspiracy, for example regarding human trafficking… the government official would be powerless to bring those posts to the social media company's attention."

Judges Edith Brown Clement, Jennifer Walker Elrod, and Don Willett listened sleepily at first, but all three snapped awake at the words "criminal conspiracy." Doughty's July 4th order specifically exempted communications about "criminal activity or criminal conspiracies," posts that "threaten the public safety," and communications about things that are "not protected free speech." Tenny's remarks more or less immediately drove into this wall of exceptions.

"So you do not believe that either of those are covered by the exception or exclusion specifically contained in the injunction?" asked Elrod.

---

Things then went bad to worse for the government:

Quote:

---

Before long judges were rattling off greatest hits of both the Missouri v. Biden evidence and Facebook Files material, the worst possible scenario. Elrod within minutes was referencing posts by officials like the White House's Rob Flaherty expressing frustration that content like Tucker Carlson videos or Alex Berenson articles hadn't been removed.

"What appears to be in the record are these irate messages from time to time from high ranking government officials that say, you didn't do this yet," she said. "It's like 'Jump!' and 'How High?'"
Tenny tried to reorient Elrod to the question of whether or not this constituted overt coercion. If you were coercing, he said, "You wouldn't say, 'I'm really mad.' You would just say, 'Do this or else,' and the or else would be clear."

Elrod, not buying it, launched into an extraordinary counter-argument, comparing the federal government to the mob:

Quote:

---

If you'll excuse me, it's like if somebody is in these movies that we see with the mob or something. They don't say and spell out things, but they have these ongoing relationships, and they never actually say, "Go do this or else you are going to have this consequence." But everybody just knows…

---

---

---

nortex97 said:

---

Brownstone Institute is a good follow on X and has a good summary of the hearing a few days back:

Quote:

---

Matt Taibbi's reporting on this at Racket News yesterday was likewise excellent. I especially appreciated his colorful account of our brilliant lawyer, John Sauer. A few excerpts:

Quote:

---

Early in the afternoon, a three-judge panel met to decide whether or not to revoke a stay of Judge Terry Doughty's sweeping July 4th order barring a battery of government agencies from contacting social media companies about content moderation. Biden administration counsel Daniel Bentele Hahs Tenny was under fire from the jump.

It was hard not to feel for Tenny. Sitting across from him was a packed table of anxious plaintiffs' attorneys, including Missouri's garrulous, tornado-like former Solicitor General John Sauer the driving force behind the Missouri v. Biden legislation as well as the current officeholder, a lean, plain-spoken lawyer with Jimmy Stewart vibes named Josh Devine. Tenny, an ashen, slouching figure, was alone. In a case of major historical import, likely headed to the Supreme Court, the federal government hadn't even sent another lawyer to keep him company. Staring down at his table, he looked like Napoleon Dynamite at lunch.

Called first, Tenny read a speech. He made it through the first thirty seconds well enough, arguing that Doughty's July 4th order would leave the government "powerless" to discourage social media companies from disseminating "untrue" statements in the event of a natural disaster. Then, almost right away, he stepped in it.

"To take another example," Tenny went on. "If… a government official were to conclude that it was likely, although not certain, that posts on social media were part of a criminal conspiracy, for example regarding human trafficking… the government official would be powerless to bring those posts to the social media company's attention."

Judges Edith Brown Clement, Jennifer Walker Elrod, and Don Willett listened sleepily at first, but all three snapped awake at the words "criminal conspiracy." Doughty's July 4th order specifically exempted communications about "criminal activity or criminal conspiracies," posts that "threaten the public safety," and communications about things that are "not protected free speech." Tenny's remarks more or less immediately drove into this wall of exceptions.

"So you do not believe that either of those are covered by the exception or exclusion specifically contained in the injunction?" asked Elrod.

---

Things then went bad to worse for the government:

Quote:

---

Before long judges were rattling off greatest hits of both the Missouri v. Biden evidence and Facebook Files material, the worst possible scenario. Elrod within minutes was referencing posts by officials like the White House's Rob Flaherty expressing frustration that content like Tucker Carlson videos or Alex Berenson articles hadn't been removed.

"What appears to be in the record are these irate messages from time to time from high ranking government officials that say, you didn't do this yet," she said. "It's like 'Jump!' and 'How High?'"
Tenny tried to reorient Elrod to the question of whether or not this constituted overt coercion. If you were coercing, he said, "You wouldn't say, 'I'm really mad.' You would just say, 'Do this or else,' and the or else would be clear."

Elrod, not buying it, launched into an extraordinary counter-argument, comparing the federal government to the mob:

Quote:

---

If you'll excuse me, it's like if somebody is in these movies that we see with the mob or something. They don't say and spell out things, but they have these ongoing relationships, and they never actually say, "Go do this or else you are going to have this consequence." But everybody just knows…

---

---

---

---

Quote:

---

If you'll excuse me, it's like if somebody is in these movies that we see with the mob or something. They don't say and spell out things, but they have these ongoing relationships, and they never actually say, "Go do this or else you are going to have this consequence." But everybody just knows…

---

🚨BREAKING: The Fifth Circuit has upheld the district court’s order in our free speech case, Missouri v. Biden, enjoining the White House, Surgeon General, CDC, & FBI from violating the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans.

— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) September 8, 2023

🚨BREAKING: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals UPHELD the District Court ruling in Missouri v. Biden, yet again enjoining the Biden Administration from colluding with social media companies to censor speech.

This is yet another big win - I'm proud to have filed this case. pic.twitter.com/0ZrTudrUa1

— Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) September 8, 2023

The injunction is not the endgame. We’ll get there when it gets to SCOTUS for some permanent issues. Hopefully. You’re right, I wish CISA were included. But if you look at the excerpts from the fifth circuit ruling it’s obvious they’re on our side. Don’t throw the baby out with…

— Justin Hart (@justin_hart) September 9, 2023

Quote:

---

The court found that seveal aspects of the District Court injunction were overly broad, but upheld a key provision and imposed its own wording. Here's the key part of the ruling on the injunction as it survives:

Quote:

---

Like the Seventh Circuit's preliminary injunction in Backpage.com, we endeavor to modify the preliminary injunction here to target the coercive government behavior with sufficient clarity to provide the officials notice of what activities are proscribed. Specifically, prohibition six of the injunction is MODIFIED to state:

Quote:

---

Defendants, and their employees and agents, shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech. That includes, but is not limited to, compelling the platforms to act, such as by intimating that some form of punishment will follow a failure to comply with any request, or supervising, directing, or otherwise meaningfully controlling the social-media companies' decision-making processes

---

Under the modified injunction, the enjoined Defendants cannot coerce or significantly encourage a platform's content-moderation decisions. Such conduct includes threats of adverse consequenceseven if those threats are not verbalized and never materializeso long as a reasonable person would construe a government's message as alluding to some form of punishment. That, of course, is informed by context (e.g., persistent pressure, perceived or actual ability to make good on a threat). The government cannot subject the platforms to legal, regulatory, or economic consequences (beyond reputational harms) if they do not comply with a given request. See Bantam Books, 372 U.S. at 68; Okwedy, 333 F.3d at 344.

The enjoined Defendants also cannot supervise a platform's content moderation decisions or directly involve themselves in the decision itself. Social-media platforms' content-moderation decisions must be theirs and theirs alone. See Blum, 457 U.S. at 1008. This approach captures illicit conduct, regardless of its form.

Because the modified injunction does not proscribe Defendants from activities that could include legal conduct, no carveouts are needed. There are two guiding inquiries for Defendants. First, is whether their action could be reasonably interpreted as a threat to take, or cause to be taken, an official action against the social-media companies if the companies decline Defendants' request to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce protected free speech on their platforms. Second, is whether Defendants have exercised active, meaningful control over the platforms' content-moderation decisions to such a degree that it inhibits the platforms' independent decision-making.

---

---

🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Biden Administration seeks stay of narrowed injunction upheld in Missouri v. Biden. Gosh, they really are desperate to keep censoring speech! https://t.co/RuD00cZp8j

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) September 14, 2023

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

It's absolutely crazy almost nobody knows/cares about this.

---