Here's evidence that the Biden administration strong-armed social media to censor conservatives

A federal judge's memorandum explains why he was prohibiting the administration's actions.

Rep. Deborah Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), tries to censor a witness at House committee hearing about government attempts to censor conservative on social media. Does she not understand the irony, or is she so righteous that she ignores the irony?

To review: Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana enjoined the White House, FBI and other Biden administration agencies from muscling Facebook and other social media companies in order to censor conservative posters.

In a blistering, 122-page memorandum to explain his reasons for issuing a temporary injunction against the administration’s violation of the posters’ First Amendment right of free speech, Doughty presented a large bundle damning accusations that nails the Biden administration.

When the liberal media bothered to report stories about the memorandum, they either brushed it off or vastly misrepresented what Biden administration really did. For example, the New York Times incorrectly reported that the judge had “restricted the Biden administration from communicating with social media platforms about broad swaths of content online…”

Broad swaths? Bunk. Liberals and Democrats want us to believe that the judge banned federal agencies from merely talking to social media. That’s deceptive. The judge said the agencies went much further than just talking with the social media giants. The agencies were actually trying to silence critics of the Biden administration by bullying social media to carry out the administration’s orders.

But here’s the actual language of the judge’s order: He ruled that the agencies could not talk to social media companies for “the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech” [My emphasis.] Big difference. Just talking to and pressuring are two different things that any rational person can easily understand.

You have to read the memorandum itself (here) to get a true picture of the judge’s reasoning.

I’ll try to give you small taste. Here is a selection of threatening quotes and actions emanating from the White House staff that clearly indicts those Democrats for trying to force social media to censor conservatives:

“…the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history,” — Judge Terry A. Doughty

President Joe Biden’s former digital director Rob Flaherty, apparently frustrated at what he considered Facebook’s slow pace of following orders, emailed the company: “Are you guys fucking serious? I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today.”

One message demanded: “[I] cannot stress the degree to which this needs to be resolved immediately. Please remove this account immediately.” Another accused Facebook of causing “political violence” by failing to censor supposedly false COVID-19 claims.

Another demanded to know why journalist Alex Berenson had not been kicked off Twitter because Berenson “was the epicenter of disinformation that radiated outward to the persuadable public.”

Some more: The administration questioned how a Tucker Carlson video could have been “demoted” when it had 40,000 shares. “Demoted?” Well there’s a new way of describing censorship. Here’s another: “Reduction.” As in the White House asking one outlet what “reduction” means: “This is exactly why I want to know what reduction actually looks like. If ‘reduction’ means pumping our most vaccine hesitance audience with Tucker Carlson saying it does not work... then... I’m not sure it’s reduction.”

Call it “reduction” or “demotion,” it means the same thing: Why the hell are you guys not doing enough to shut up the other side?

These threats were not made by a rogue staffer acting by himself. One email noted that the White House was plotting how to carry out the censorship: “Internally we have been considering our options on what to do about it.”

Some more revelations in Doughty’s memorandum:

[Former Press Secretary Jen] Psaki said one of the White House’s “asks” of social-media companies was how to “create a robust enforcement strategy.” [My emphasis.]

The White House communicated to Facebook that it was creating a “Facebook COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation Brief recommending much more aggressive censorship by Facebook.”

One staffer made the administration’s censorship “requests” quite clear: “I’ve been asking you guys pretty directly over a series of conversations if the biggest issues you are seeing on your platform when it comes to vaccine hesitancy and the degree to which borderline content—as you define it, is playing a role.” In other words, the administration wants social media to be partners in this unconstitutional attack on free speech.

And so much more. Even Surgeon General Vivek Murthy signed on: “We expect more from our technology companies. We’re asking them to operate with greater transparency and accountability. We’re asking them to monitor information more closely. We’re asking them to consistently take action against misinformation super-spreaders on their platforms.”

That, of course would by “misinformation” as defined by COVID czar Anthony Fauci and passed along by the White House.

That’s just the start of the parade of horribles that the judge itemized. The seemingly endless list of threatening quotes goes on and on for page after page. The targeted agencies include:

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (e.g. Anthony Fauci), FBI, the Mis, Dis and Malinformation Team of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, State Department and its Global Engagement Center, Census Bureau, Homeland Security Dept., Commerce Dept., Justice Dept., Food and Drug Administration and Treasury Dept.

Names. Dates. Quotes. For each and every defendant.* Of course, liberals will call this a “conspiracy theory.” Their defense is the old chestnut that everything is taken out of context. Although a fair reading of the memorandum is clearly otherwise.

Included are more details about the FBI’s previously disclosed successful efforts to deny the public any information about Hunter Biden’s laptop. Wrote Dougherty:

The FBI’s failure to alert social-media companies that the Hunter Biden laptop story was real, and not mere Russian disinformation, is particularly troubling. The FBI had the laptop in their possession since December 2019 and had warned social-media companies to look out for a “hack and dump” operation by the Russians prior to the 2020 election. Even after Facebook specifically asked whether the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation, [Laura] Dehmlow of the FBI refused to comment, resulting in the social-media companies’ suppression of the story. As a result, millions of U.S. citizens did not hear the story prior to the November 3, 2020 election. Additionally, the FBI was included in Industry meetings and bilateral meetings, received and forwarded alleged misinformation to social-media companies, and actually mislead social-media companies in regard to the Hunter Biden laptop story. The Court finds this evidence demonstrative of significant encouragement by the FBI Defendants.

Here’ how Judge Doughty summarized the collective mess:

These actions are just a few examples of the unrelenting pressure the Defendants exerted against social-media companies. This Court finds the above examples demonstrate that Plaintiffs can likely prove that White House Defendants engaged in coercion to induce social-media companies to suppress free speech….

The White House demanded updates and reports of the results of their efforts to suppress alleged disinformation, and the social-media companies complied with these demands. The White House scheduled numerous Zoom and in-person meetings with social-media officials to keep each other informed about the companies’ efforts to suppress disinformation.

For all the Left’s huffing and puffing about the “death of democracy,” the judge wrote that this, “is an unprecedented assault on the freedom of speech and the press.” Aside from the legal question of the Biden administration’s behavior, there’s the overriding question of how it endangers the undergirding principles of democracy: free inquiry, informed citizens, respect for individual beliefs and more.

If you watched this week’s House committee hearing on the administration’s wide-ranging assault on our rights, you witnessed for yourself the danger in which we find ourselves. The high irony is that Democrats (unsuccessfully) tried to censor one of those witnesses—Robert Kennedy Jr.—in a hearing about censorship. No shame or embarrassment there.

As a journalist for decades, I received numerous calls from government agencies at all levels. They wanted to inform me, not to force me to back their views. Never had I experienced the same kind of governmental pressure to snuff out opposing views. If they tried to force me, I would have told them to…well, you know.

Democrats can’t seem to understand the difference. And that makes me fear for our democracy.

*The list of defendants: President Joseph R Biden (“President Biden”), Jr, Karine Jean-Pierre (“Jean-Pierre”), Vivek H Murthy (“Murthy”), Xavier Becerra (“Becerra”), Dept of Health & Human Services (“HHS”), Dr. Hugh Auchincloss (“Auchincloss”), National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases (“NIAID”), Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (“CDC”), Alejandro Mayorkas (“Mayorkas”), Dept of Homeland Security (“DHS”), Jen Easterly (“Easterly”), Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (“CISA”), Carol Crawford (“Crawford”), United States Census Bureau (“Census Bureau”), U. S. Dept of Commerce (“Commerce”), Robert Silvers (“Silvers”), Samantha Vinograd (“Vinograd”), Ali Zaidi (“Zaidi”), Rob Flaherty (“Flaherty”), Dori Salcido (“Salcido”), Stuart F. Delery (“Delery”), Aisha Shah (“Shah”), Sarah Beran (“Beran”), Mina Hsiang (“Hsiang”), U. S. Dept of Justice (“DOJ”), Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), Laura Dehmlow (“Dehmlow”), Elvis M. Chan (“Chan”), Jay Dempsey (“Dempsey”), Kate Galatas (“Galatas”), Katharine Dealy (“Dealy”), Yolanda Byrd (“Byrd”), Christy Choi (“Choi”), Ashley Morse (“Morse”), Joshua Peck (“Peck”), Kym Wyman (“Wyman”), Lauren Protentis (“Protentis”), Geoffrey Hale (“Hale”), Allison Snell (“Snell”), Brian Scully (“Scully”), Jennifer Shopkorn (“Shopkorn”), U. S. Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”), Erica Jefferson (“Jefferson”), Michael Murray (“Murray”), Brad Kimberly (“Kimberly”), U. S. Dept of State (“State”), Leah Bray (“Bray”), Alexis Frisbie (“Frisbie”), Daniel Kimmage (“Kimmage”), U. S. Dept of Treasury (“Treasury”), Wally Adeyemo (“Adeyemo).