As PJ Media’s Robert Spencer reported earlier this week, a Trump-appointed federal judge in Louisiana delivered a massive blow against the Public Health™ technocrats, ruling that the government could no longer use implicit or explicit threats to coerce social media companies to censor speech it disfavors.
Not only was the judge favorable to the plaintiff’s claims that they were unduly censored by the state (as they obviously were) in his ruling, but he also issued a (somewhat rare, based on my understanding) injunction against many of the defendants, barring them from leaning on social media companies pending the ultimate resolution of the case.
From the ruling (emphasis added):
Defendants maintain their interest in being able to report misinformation and warn social-media companies of foreign actors’ misinformation campaigns outweighs the Plaintiffs’ interest in the right of free speech. This Court disagrees and finds the balance of equities and the public interest strongly favors the issuance of a preliminary injunction. The public interest is served by maintaining the constitutional structure and the First Amendment free speech rights of the Plaintiffs. The right of free speech is a fundamental constitutional right that is vital to the freedom of our nation, and Plaintiffs have produced evidence of a massive effort by Defendants, from the White House to federal agencies, to suppress speech based on its content. Defendants’ alleged suppression has potentially resulted in millions of free speech violations. Plaintiffs’ free speech rights thus far outweighs the rights of Defendants, and thus, Plaintiffs satisfy the final elements needed to show entitlement to a preliminary injunction.
As I noted in a recent interview with OAN’s Alison Steinberg, Trump deserves a lot of credit both for getting the United States out of the WHO (before the Brandon entity put us back in) and for having appointed at least one federal judge with a modicum of respect for the First Amendment.
We’ll see how this plays out at the higher levels of the judiciary.
For the corporate state media’s part, they are grief-stricken at the prospect of Americans being able to — gasp! — express their opinions in the Land of the Free.
“The Trump-appointed judge’s move could upend years of efforts to enhance coordination between the government and social media companies,” the Washington Post fretted (financially tied as it is to the CIA).
Related: CDC Director Rochelle Walensky Warns of the ‘Politicization of Science’ in Outgoing Interview
The Post was hardly alone in its consternation.
Once upon a time, before the vocation was professionalized, it was taken for granted that journalists existed to challenge powerful interests and the lies they have told in various forms throughout human history. This is the societal value of journalism practiced in a pure form. Unfortunately, the corporate state media of today would much prefer not only not to challenge state power but to actually work hand-in-glove with its master, to propagate favored narratives and censor out of existence unfashionable ones.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member