In a recent development that has significant implications for the future of free speech, a federal judge’s injunction has restrained President Joe Biden’s administration from exerting undue influence over social media platforms to suppress certain posts. This case, which has caught the attention of former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, is expected to escalate all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Bondi, speaking on Newsmax’s “Saturday Agenda,” noted that signals from the highest court in the land regarding the censorship of free speech in other cases lend hope to the cause. “I also anticipate that [the case] will be successful there as well,” she remarked. This injunction was issued by U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty of Louisiana in response to a lawsuit filed by Republican attorneys general from Louisiana and Missouri.
The lawsuit alleges that the Biden administration has been engaging social media companies, including Twitter, to target posts deemed to fuel hesitancy surrounding COVID-19 vaccines or disrupt elections. Bondi commended the attorneys general involved, specifically mentioning Jeff Landry and Eric Schmidt, for their courageous action against the administration’s overreach. “Not only were they censoring election results and free speech about elections; they were censoring COVID issues,” she emphasized.
The former attorney general also raised concerns about social media companies being instructed to suppress information related to Hunter Biden’s laptop, highlighting its potential impact on American elections. “It is outrageous what they’re doing, and the fact that they’re even attempting to challenge it now is even more outrageous,” Bondi exclaimed.
Responding to the administration’s argument that the ruling might hamper criminal investigations, Bondi called out their hypocrisy, noting that the ruling is limited in scope. She asserted that the injunction would not impede efforts to combat child predators, human traffickers, or drug dealers operating on the internet.
Let’s hope Bondi is correct because this case will be fundamental in protecting our first amendment rights for years to come.