Enjoyed this video? Join my Locals community for exclusive content at declarationsoftruth.locals.com!

1 month ago

255

News Law and Order first amendment censorship judiciary supreme court election fraud coronavirus january 6 event

First Amendment goes to (Supreme) Court
By Terry A. Hurlbut
Today the Supreme Court of the United States will hear argument in the largest First Amendment case in modern times. The case of Murthy v. Missouri, once known as Missouri v. Biden, comes to oral argument this morning. As the United States government proposes to assert an authority of which George Orwell scarcely dreamed, its targets are also preparing to ask the Court to let the case go to trial – and to reinstate a massive injunction against the clear violations of the First Amendment the trial judge found. But the targets are also rallying outside the Supreme Courthouse, and in legacy and “new” media.
Essence of the First Amendment case
On August 2, 2022, the States of Missouri and Louisiana, plus five individuals, sued the Biden administration and several agencies. They alleged that the government had coerced Twitter (now calling itself X), Meta, Alphabet, Spotify, and other social media to become State actors. The named individuals are Jayanta Bhattacharya, M.D. Aaron Kheriaty, M.D., Martin Kulldorf, M.D., and journalists Jim Hoft and Jill Hines.
Judge Terry Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (Monroe Division), has had this case ever since. In March of last year he denied a motion to dismiss from the defendants. And on July 4, 2023, he handed down a massive injunction against the government.
The government appealed, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals weakened the injunction somewhat. That didn’t satisfy the government, so now they are asking the Supreme Court to clear them to go on turning social media into State actors. But something has changed since then: Twitter, now X, is not cooperating.
Docket pages for this case are available from CourtListener (District and Appellate Courts) and the Supreme Court itself.
https://rumble.com/v44aiyc-government-strenuously-defending-censorship.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6
Last-minute commentaries
In apparent preparation for today’s oral argument session, The Gateway Pundit has run interviews with four individual plaintiffs. (The fifth, Jim Hoft, is Editor-in-chief of The Gateway Pundit and actually conducted all these interviews.)
https://rumble.com/v4jj3oh-jim-hoft-talks-w-jay-bhattacharya.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6
https://rumble.com/v4jdqf0-dr.-kheriaty-faces-termination-after-contesting-university-california-irvin.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6
https://rumble.com/v4j619w-jim-hoft-interviews-dr.-martin-kulldorff-co-plaintiff-in-historic-mo-v-bide.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6
https://rumble.com/v4jjagf-jim-hoft-interviews-jill-hines-who-was-silenced-after-challenging-governmen.html?mref=4teej&mc=88ce6
Mr. Hoft provided at least partial transcripts of his interviews with Drs. Bhattacharya, Kheriaty, Kulldorf, and Ms. Hines. These four faced censorship over their challenge to the prevailing narrative on coronavirus, and the “vaccines” ostensibly against it. In those interviews, the plaintiffs describe what they said that the government found so terrible, and the specific ways the censorship affected them.
But coronavirus is clearly not the only issue at hand in the government’s flouting of the First Amendment. The theft of the Election of 2020 is another sore point. Yesterday The New York Times published a boo-hoo piece: “How Trump’s Allies Are Winning the War Over Disinformation.” In it they try to portray the government’s censorship regime in sympathetic terms. The piece refers repeatedly to “initiatives started during the Trump administration.” Of course they leave out that these were Deep State initiatives, operating behind the President’s back. They also mention the Twitter Files, and the first hearings before the Judiciary Committee and its Weaponization Subcommittee. Lastly they mentioned Judge Doughty’s injunction – and the Supreme Court’s scheduled oral argument on it. (Ben Kew at The Gateway Pundit also offered a brief summary of the piece.)
A big rally
Perhaps most embarrassing to the government, The Gateway Pundit is co-sponsoring a rally on the Supreme Courthouse steps for this morning. They list Children’s Health Defense, Liber-Net, the Brownstone Institute, the Front-line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), and the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) as its fellow co-sponsors.
Most of these co-sponsors concern themselves with coronavirus and the vaccines. That should surprise no one, because the coronavirus “pandemic,” and the federal government’s overreaction to it, were central to the censorship of which the plaintiffs are complaining.
The coronavirus issue is still alive, because the World Health Organization is using it to promote a very dangerous treaty. That treaty effectively will usher in one-world government, because it will set up an authority to override health policy in all signatory States. But more than coronavirus, or even the threatened “Disease X,” is at stake here. As The New York Times let slip, election integrity is also at stake. That an old-line newspaper should plump for censorship should shame them, given their role as petitioners in New York Times v. United States – the Pentagon Papers case.
All this serves as more evidence that people should simply unsubscribe from legacy media and support new media. That includes other social media that, throughout this drama, refused to become State actors for any consideration.
Link to:
Docket pages:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63290154/missouri-v-biden/
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67563473/state-of-missouri-v-biden/
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-411.html