Despite the Biden administration’s attempts to have the lawsuit against web censorship dismissed, a federal court found on Monday that the states of Louisiana and Missouri had “plausibly alleged” First Amendment violations.
Republican Attorneys General Erik Schmitt of Missouri and Jeff Landry of Louisiana filed a lawsuit on May 5, and United States District Judge Terry A. Doughty of the Western District of Louisiana rejected the Biden administration’s request to have it dismissed.
Schmitt and Landry claimed that the Biden administration worked with social media platforms to stifle discussion of a variety of topics, such as the 2020 presidential election and the COVID-19 pandemic.
Judge Doughty just DENIED gov't defendants' motion to dismiss in Missouri v. Biden (with an exception for claims against President, which are generally disfavored). I'm working my way through the 77-page decision, which I'll link to soon and post choice quotes from— Jenin Younes (former handle @leftylockdowns1) (@JeninYounesEsq) March 20, 2023
“Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged joint action, entwinement, and/or that specific features of Defendants’ actions combined to create state action. Plaintiffs have clearly and plausibly alleged that Defendants engaged in viewpoint discrimination and prior restraints. As discussed in great detail above, Plaintiffs allege a regime of censorship that targets specific viewpoints deemed mis-, dis-, or malinformation by federal officials. Because Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are targeting particular views taken by speakers on a specific subject, they have alleged a clear violation of the First Amendment, i.e., viewpoint discrimination. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, by placing bans, shadow-bans, and other forms of restrictions on Plaintiffs’ social-media accounts, are engaged in de facto prior restraints, another clear violation of the First Amendment,” Doughty said in a statement.