In a predictable yet outrageous move, the U.S. Government – currently better known as the ‘deep state’ has submitted an emergency stay request seeking to overrule a recent injunction imposed by a federal judge, which effectively bars the out of control government from infringing upon Americans’ First Amendment rights. The ruling, which should not have been a contentious issue, forbids the government from conspiring with social media giants to censor constitutionally protected speech.
The stay lodged by the government argues the initial injunction to be ambiguous, and maintains that the attorney generals failed to demonstrate concrete “harm from the censorship” – a claim Federal Judge Terry Doughty has previously dismissed. We are not making this up.
The “government’s” (can’t really be the government of the United States Constitution at this point) request for the Court to suspend the July 4 injunction until an appeal can be heard, hinges on the argument that “The Government faces irreparable harm with each day the injunction remains in effect…” The request notes that the ambiguity of the injunction could inhibit the government from pursuing various lawful activities, such as addressing public concerns and collaborating with social media companies to prevent significant harm to the American populace and democratic processes. The Soviet Union had less control over their Pravda.
The emergency stay submission posits that potential damage to the government, should the injunction persist, outweighs any risk posed to the plaintiffs if a stay is granted. It contends that suspending the injunction is in the public interest, further adding that the defendants have substantiated a compelling case against the plaintiffs’ alleged failure to demonstrate their First Amendment claims or fulfill Article III standing requirements.
The stark clarity of the government’s stay request exposes pure villainy and has Marxist / Stalinist bearings – one where the “defense of democracy” (aka implementation of new Socialist by order of installed dictator Biden) ostensibly overrides American citizens’ constitutional rights.
The lawsuit, initiated in May by then Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, alleges that White House officials either colluded with or coerced Big Tech companies into suppressing unfavorable viewpoints and content on their platforms under the guise of combatting “dis-information,” “mis-information,” and “mal-information” – a common tactic typically employed by communist regimes or a banana Republic.
The injunction has been hailed as a victory by the state attorneys general, accusing the Biden regime of facilitating an extensive federal “Censorship Enterprise” that emboldens tech giants to marginalize politically dissenting perspectives and speakers. This victory has been echoed by patriots across the country who experienced government suppression of their speech, deeming the actions as “the most blatant infringements of the First Amendment in US history.”
The injunction provides a series of potential restrictions for federal authorities when liaising with tech companies, primarily prohibiting the government from urging, encouraging, or pressuring social media platforms to censor or eliminate free speech content.
Judge Doughty, however, clarified that government officials are allowed to collaborate with tech firms regarding content or accounts associated with criminal activities, such as child pornography, or national security threats, illegal political campaign activities, and cyberattacks.
Although the case’s final verdict is yet to be delivered, it is widely anticipated that Judge Doughty will favor the Republicans, potentially bringing to a standstill over a decade of cooperative endeavors between federal authorities and powerful tech industry leaders with substantial influence over public discourse.
