The federal government had a hard time convincing a judge last week that it hasn't been working with and coercing social media companies to censor free speech.
Some notable moments from the first hearing in our First Amendment case, Missouri v. Biden:
The judge asked the feds if they had ever read George Orwell’s 1984, pointing out the similarities between the case and the book.
The Court asked the feds if all the emails between them and social media companies were real because "it seems like there's a lot here." The feds were forced to admit the tens of thousands of pages of evidence are genuine.
The judge questioned the feds on several hypotheticals, asking if the First Amendment applied. He asked if an American citizen questioning the safety or efficacy of masks or a vaccine was protected under the First Amendment.
The feds' answer?
"It COULD be" but often won’t be.
It’s worth remembering that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was limited by the CDC because of safety concerns. But the feds censored people for expressing concerns about safety.
The judge also asked Biden's lawyers if the First Amendment covered Americans' right to say that Biden is responsible for high gas prices and inflation.
Their answer?
It depends.
The judge also asked them if the First Amendment applied to Americans' right to say that the 2020 election was stolen.
Their answer?
It depends.
The judge also pointed out that it seemed to be only conservatives who are targeted for their speech, asking the feds if they could provide one example of a liberal who was censored due to "misinformation."
The feds provided only one example of a liberal being censored, and that person is a political opponent of Joe Biden.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the Court asked the feds why he should believe them when they say they claim censorship has stopped and won’t happen again.
And that is exactly why we are asking the Court for a preliminary injunction to halt this vast censorship enterprise.
The federal government cannot be trusted to protect Americans' rights, which is precisely why our Founders enshrined the First Amendment into the Constitution.
My office is doing everything it can to protect Americans' right to free speech, the very bedrock of our great nation.
Stay tuned- this fight is far from over.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
My office seeks to protect consumers and hold accountable those who illegally plague Missourians with unwanted phone calls.
We filed suit with 47 other AGs against Avid Telecom for sending more than 7.5 billion calls to phone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry.
The lawsuit alleges that Avid Telecom initiated and facilitated billions of illegal robocalls to millions of people, thereby violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and other federal and state telemarketing and consumer laws.
My office has already filed suit against one of Avid Telecom’s customers. Avid Telecom assisted that customer in sending more than four billion robocalls between May 2019 and March 2021.
I've joined a coalition of 27 AGs to call on Congress to take action on Biden's unconstitutional pistol brace rule.
Although we have filed a lawsuit challenging the pistol brace rule—and have sought preliminary injunctive relief—Congress has a role to play here.
The pistol brace rule is an egregious overreach. For over a decade, the ATF has recognized that pistols equipped with stabilizing braces are not short-barreled rifles subject to the registration and tax requirements of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act.
The ATF has now reversed course without statutory authority and is requiring registration of pistols with stabilizing braces by the end of May. If an individual fails to register or otherwise dispose of a pistol with a brace, then they will be guilty of a serious federal felony.
BREAKING: The Eighth Circuit has granted our motion to halt Biden's unlawful attempt to impose burdensome ozone regulations on energy producers throughout the state.
This is a huge win for Missouri consumers and energy producers alike.
Biden's radical climate agenda is a direct threat to Missouri power plants.
His unconstitutional attempt to legislate through the EPA would force Missourians' energy costs to increase exponentially, while simultaneously risking the security of our power grid.
Yet again, @POTUS continues to cause problems for everyday Missourians while ignoring his constitutionally mandated responsibilities.
Joe Biden’s immigration policy is so egregious that we can’t even finish one lawsuit before needing to amend it to address something else.
I am moving for emergency relief from the Biden Administration’s unlawful attempt to further open the southern border.
Not only did @POTUS allow Title 42 to expire, but he followed up with a new program to release thousands of illegal immigrants into the U.S. each day. My motion seeks a court order to force the Biden Administration not to implement this illegal program.
I am joined in filing this motion by 12 other AGs in our existing lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security for the Biden Administration’s refusal to secure the southern border.
As Attorney General, I will always defend the rights of states to protect the unborn.
To that end, I filed an amicus brief with 17 other AGs to defend Ohio’s Heartbeat Act, which prevents performing or inducing an abortion after a heartbeat is detected.
The people’s elected representatives in Ohio have spoken on the issue of abortion, and that decision by the state legislature needs to be protected.
As abortion disputes have, after Dobbs, returned to the States, state courts have been urged to continue distorting the law to protect abortion.
ICYMI: "Vera's work with St. Louis DA Kim Gardner became a focus of Attorney General Andrew Bailey's amended briefing in his case against the circuit attorney alleging dereliction of duty after the partnership."
-> foxnews.com/media/doj-fede…
I think voters in the state of Missouri need to understand where outside money comes from and what motivates it. We should understand better what their motivations are.
This is a recent phenomenon where you see a circuit attorney who doesn't care about the rule of law and is callous to the plight of victims in her jurisdiction by unlawfully refusing to do her job.