Joe Biden, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and the Democrats were caught colluding with social media, and particularly Facebook, to censor Americans from discussing issues related to COVID-19 and the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.
This rightfully led to restrictions placed on the Biden administration from communicating with social media companies while a lawsuit proceeds against the Democrats’ coercion to censor free speech.
The lawsuit specifically proves that Biden and the Democrats actively censored discussions about the COVID-19 lab leak theory, pandemic lockdowns, vaccine side effects, election fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story. (Trending: US Forces Attacked By Suicide Drones)
However, the Supreme Court has lifted those restrictions and reversed the decision.
The ruling pauses a preliminary injunction issued by lower courts, which found a coordinated campaign by senior Biden officials to censor disfavored views on social media.
Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented, expressing concerns about government censorship.
The case originated from allegations that federal officials pressured social media platforms to engage in censorship. (Trending: Devastating New Poll For Joe Biden)
The lower court ruled in favor of these claims, and the Supreme Court’s stay will remain in effect until a final judgment is rendered.
“At this time in the history of our country, what the Court has done, I fear, will be seen by some as giving the Government a green light to use heavy-handed tactics to skew the presentation of views on the medium that increasingly dominates the dissemination of news. That is most unfortunate,” wrote Justice Alito.
“Government censorship of private speech is antithetical to our democratic form of government, and therefore today’s decision is highly disturbing,” Justice Alito wrote.
The “coordinated campaign” at the center of the landmark legal battle allegedly involved officials from the White House, the surgeon general, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FBI, and a top U.S. cybersecurity agency.
The case originated from allegations by Missouri and Louisiana, along with various private parties.
“Instead of providing any concrete proof that ‘harm is imminent,’ the Government offers a series of hypothetical statements that a covered official might want to make in the future and that, it thinks, might be chilled,” wrote Justice Alito.
“But hypotheticals are just that—speculation that the Government ‘may suffer irreparable harm at some point in the future,’ not concrete proof.”
Most Popular:
Biological Man Named ‘Hottest Woman’ By Maxim
Top Trump Donor Dies In Murder-Suicide
Chilling Audio of Hamas Terrorists Released
