By Katelynn Richardson
Daily Caller News Foundation
Both the judges and the plaintiffs in the Missouri v. Biden free speech lawsuit resisted the Biden administration’s arguments backing its social media censorship efforts during oral arguments Thursday.
The Fifth Circuit heard arguments Thursday regarding the Biden administration’s appeal of a lower court’s injunction barring federal officials from communicating with social media companies for the purposes of censoring protected speech. Nearly all of the points raised by Department of Defense (DOJ) lawyer Daniel Tenny, representing the administration, were met with resistance by the three judges hearing the case, and opposition from the plaintiff’s lawyer.
When Tenny said the federal government had a “back and forth” relationship with social media companies that did not include coercion, judges offered analogies illustrating that coercion doesn’t need to be attached to an explicit threat.
Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, a George W. Bush appointee, said the administration had a “very close working relationship” with companies that was like “a supervisor complaining about a worker” or the mob making demands without having to “spell out things.”
Tenny later claimed that states did not have standing because they could not prove the same government-backed content moderation actions would be taken against them for future posts. Elrod said she didn’t understand.
“I don’t understand what’s not going to happen in the future,” she said. “Don’t all state government people make posts all the time?”
Judge Edith Brown Clement, a George H. W. Bush appointee, asked Tenny if the government still had regular contact with social media platforms about moderating election misinformation.
WND is now on Trump’s Truth Social! Follow us @WNDNews
“I would acknowledge that there is still some contact, whether the nature of it is identical to what happened in the past, I wouldn’t say that, ” Tenny said.
John Sauer, special assistant attorney general for the state of Louisiana, who represented the plaintiffs, later rebutted the claim about standing.
“Multiple state officials and state agencies made specific postings on social media platforms that were taken down, and the district court ,with express reference to those, found that it was caused by federal pressure,” he said, noting that the government’s assertion the states haven’t shown they will make future posts subject to moderation is “just wrong.”
“There’s a finding from the district court that the states are facing the imminent threat of ongoing future censorship,” Sauer said.
Responding to the Biden administration’s insistence that there was no coercion, Sauer pointed out that the district court’s opinion finds a series of statements “explicitly linking the threat of adverse legal consequences to the White House’s demand to target specific viewpoints expressed in the COVID-19 area,” along with finding other implied threats.
“You have the FBI sending one to five times per month a demand for removal of specific speakers — from dozens or hundreds at a time — going all the way back to 2018,” he said.
“It’s a targeting of specific speakers, specific content and specific viewpoints that has been so widespread and so effective that it has fundamentally transformed online discourse on questions of absolutely overwhelming social and political significance,” Sauer said.
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey initially filed the lawsuit in May 2022. Western District of Louisiana Judge Terry A. Doughty issued an injunction against the Biden administration on July 4.
The Fifth Circuit issued a temporary stay on the injunction on July 14 “until further orders” of the court.
This story originally was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
IMPORTANT NOTE: To their horror, America’s ruling elites failed to knock out Donald Trump during his four years as president via the fabricated Trump-Russia collusion scandal – conceived and funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign, as the Durham report proves – or through two circus-like impeachment trials. Later came “January 6,” a demonstration-turned-riot by Trump supporters who passionately believed, with good reason, that the recent election – and therefore their country – had just been stolen from them. Members of Congress now want to constitutionally bar Trump from again seeking public office for having instigated “an armed insurrection” (no protester was armed) against America.
Then in March, Trump was indicted in New York on 34 counts of falsifying business records, and in June, still more indictments were filed against Trump – 37 federal criminal charges related to his handling of classified documents. Honest legal experts not in league with the Biden administration openly classify these indictments as somewhere between frivolous and idiotic, not to mention grotesquely politically motivated.
The Deep State’s never-ending persecution of Donald Trump, as well as the incredible back story of the totalitarian agenda Trump’s persecutors are attempting to implement in America and why Trump represents a mortal threat to their nefarious designs – is the focus of the blockbuster July issue of WND’s critically acclaimed monthly Whistleblower magazine, titled “THE PERSECUTION OF DONALD TRUMP: Why the ruling elites loathe – and fear – the 45th president.”
WHISTLEBLOWER is available in both the popular print edition and a state-of-the-art digital version, either single issues or discounted annual subscriptions.
SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!
