A federal injunction barring Biden administration officials from working with social media platforms and nonprofits could prove fatal to the White House’s censorship efforts, according to technology and legal experts.

Judge Terry Doughty control On July 4th, Biden officials said they would “encourage, encourage, pressure, or induce in any way the removal, removal, suppression, or reduction of free speech protected content” with tech companies and nonprofits. He announced that he could not be contacted.

A federal judge on Tuesday detailed Facebook’s apparent suppression of Tucker Carlson at the request of the White House, even though the video in question did not violate the platform’s coronavirus response policies. provided. @DailyCaller https://t.co/XIWoTD1O6L

— James Lynch (@jameslynch32) July 6, 2023

“Our evidence shows that many federal agencies, including the CDC, FBI, CISA, and the White House, have effectively dictated what Americans cannot say or see on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and these platforms. “It’s just shocking to see or witness the enormity of this censorship business,” Louisiana Attorney General Liz said. Murrill said in an interview with the Daily Caller. (Related: A day after free speech ruling, State Department reportedly canceled Facebook conference on 2024 election)

Murrill is the plaintiff’s lead attorney in a censorship case and she run as a republican The next Attorney General of Louisiana.

“All of these government officials have taken an oath to uphold and enforce the U.S. Constitution. And while their attitude is simply the price we pay to protect the public from ‘disinformation’ and ‘misinformation,’ they make themselves arbiters of what we see and hear. We are appointing,” Murrill added.

According to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a nonpartisan free speech group, Doughty’s 155-page injunction is a testament to the government’s pressure on social media websites to restrict the speech of political opponents. It turned out to be substantial evidence.

“The district court’s decision Missouri vs. Biden We appreciate the serious threat that government pressure tactics pose to free speech online. The record shows that the government actively relied on private social media companies to censor constitutionally protected speech,” the group said. public statement. A FIRE spokesperson referred the caller to the statement.

“The federal overreach under the Trump and Biden administrations is a reminder of the need for laws that require governments to disclose their interactions with social media companies. It’s hard to imagine not continuing to abuse power behind the scenes.”

Jake Denton, a technology analyst at the Heritage Foundation, also said he believes legislation is needed to prevent continued government censorship of speech. (Related: Facebook blocked Tucker Carlson video that didn’t violate content policy after White House request, judge says)

“Our lawmakers are riding the momentum of Judge Doty’s ruling to prevent the government from colluding with Big Tech to censor speech, and to limit these powerful tech companies from censoring users on their own. Passing legislation that puts up barriers must be a priority.Until our lawmakers pass legislation to protect Americans online, power-hungry social media companies and government officials will use these as tools of censorship and control. will continue to abuse our platform,” Denton told Kohler.

In March, Republican Attorneys General Landry of Louisiana and Bailey of Missouri filed motions seeking a preliminary injunction against the Biden administration. The Biden administration is appealing Doughty’s injunction, and government agencies are reportedly suspending meetings with tech companies in the meantime.

“It was certainly expected that the government would appeal, and that it would appeal swiftly. and the government can say what it sees fit.What the government can’t do is force and control social media companies to run their own censorship business,” Murrill said. he told Kohler.

Judge Doughty rejected the Biden administration’s request to stay the federal injunction pending appeal. Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in stopping government agencies from colluding with tech companies to censor speech, he said.

“U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty praises correct ruling that Biden administration likely violated First Amendment by conspiring with Big Tech to censor Americans This is a basic black-letter constitution. The federal government cannot outsource censorship to private actors,” Mike Davis, founder and president of the Article III Project, told Kohler. .

“If this case goes to the Supreme Court, it should be a 9-0 win for free speech, but I highly doubt that the Democratic-appointed judges will actually follow the Constitution. Fortunately, Trump. Thanks to the president, constitutionalists have a majority in the courts and will undoubtedly give free speech a victory.”

In the Missouri v. Biden case, thousands of internal documents between Biden officials and social media companies became public knowledge. Additional correspondence between government agencies and Twitter has been made public by the “Twitter Files” series, which gives an inside look at the company before it was acquired by Elon Musk.

Twitter’s decision to censor the New York Post’s coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop ahead of the 2020 presidential election was influenced by pressure from intelligence agencies. Social media platforms also came under pressure to suppress COVID-19 vaccine skeptics, information about leaked labs, and other political topics.