Table of Contents
Ben Terangi
Ben Terangi is a freelance journalist writing from Milwaukee.
The United States Constitution is something of a miracle. But unless we defend it, it’s just a piece of paper.
These are the words of Dr Aaron Kheriaty, a plaintiff in Missouri v. Biden, a federal free speech case that has reverberated globally.
In short, a swathe of federal agencies, in collusion with the Biden White House, spent years pressuring social media platforms to deprive Americans of their right to speak freely — on topics ranging from the Hunter Biden laptop scandal to the origins of COVID-19 to the integrity of the 2020 election.
The states of Missouri and Louisiana, led by Missouri’s former attorney general and current US Senator Eric Schmitt, took the US government to court and have secured a historic — if temporary — victory against the forces of censorship.
The presiding judge, Terry A. Doughty, conspicuously used July 4th — the United States’ national holiday and a day when federal rulings are seldom issued — to send a message about freedom the Biden administration cannot ignore:
“If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”
Though more developments are expected in this case, not least because the defendants have already filed an intent to appeal, the result thus far is promising: Doughty has issued a preliminary injunction preventing the US government from ordering Big Tech to police speech on their platforms.
Ceasing censorship
On his Substack, Kheriaty could barely contain his elation, rejoicing that the judge “granted nearly all the provisions in our request, placing strict limits around any communication between government officials and social media companies”.
Judge Doughty’s 155-page ruling is a thing of beauty — at least in the eyes of any still interested in the US Constitution’s First Amendment. Consider just one red-hot excerpt, which has independent outlets buzzing worldwide:
“Although this case is still relatively young, and at this stage the Court is only examining it in terms of the Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, the evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’.
The Plaintiffs have presented substantial evidence in support of their claims that they were the victims of a far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign. This court finds that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment free speech claim against the Defendants.”
In summarising the case, Judge Doughty listed a dizzying array of failings and alleged scandals the Biden regime did not want Americans questioning: Big Tech’s suppression of Hunter Biden’s laptop contents on the eve of the 2020 election; the lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origin; the inefficiency of masks, lockdowns and COVID-19 vaccines; election security issues including voting by mail; and the Biden economy.
Perhaps most shocking of all, as noted by the judge, the US government even suppressed humorous parody content that mocked — you guessed it, the US government — along with negative posts about President Biden.
As Doughty highlighted in his ruling, “although the censorship alleged in this case almost exclusively targeted conservative speech, the issues raised herein go beyond party lines”. In words all Americans should instinctively agree with, Doughty surmised that “the right to free speech is not a member of any political party and does not hold any political ideology”. He added:
“The question does not concern whether speech is conservative, moderate, liberal, progressive, or somewhere in between. What matters is that Americans, despite their views, will not be censored or suppressed by the Government. Other than well-known exceptions to the Free Speech Clause [of the First Amendment], all political views and content are protected free speech.”
Restoring fairness
It has been a blockbuster week for freedom in the United States, with two other momentous rulings being handed down by the highest court in the land.
Last Thursday, the Supreme Court struck down so-called affirmative action, ruling 6-3 and 6-2 respectively on two cases, in a move that will replace racial profiling with colourblind meritocracy in the nation’s university admissions process.
And last Friday, SCOTUS decided 6-3 in favour of Lorie Smith, a Colorado website designer who took the state to court in order to establish her right not to have to design same-sex wedding sites. The Supreme Court held that under the First Amendment, Smith cannot be forced to create “expressive speech” that violates her values – as the state has tried to force cake artist Jack Phillips to do.
While the media spun the latter ruling as a win for religion and conservatism, SCOTUS clearly grounded their decision in the First Amendment.
In the majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch warned that under Colorado’s logic, “an unwilling Muslim movie director [could be required] to make a film with a Zionist message,” “an atheist muralist to accept a commission celebrating Evangelical zeal,” or “a male website designer married to another man to design websites for an organization that advocates against same-sex marriage”.
It was 247 years ago that the Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence and birthed the United States.
Despite countless discouragements over recent years, the last week’s events provide a glimmer of hope that all is not lost in the home of the brave and the land of the free.
