And that is why his administration is appealing the July 4 court ruling of U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty that has ordered a sharp limit for federal officials in colluding with social media companies about the content contained on their platforms. The decision was the response to a lawsuit filed by Louisiana and Missouri last year.
The suit claims that Biden's White House, the Department of Health and Human Services and officials at other agencies committed censorship in violation of the First Amendment by pressuring social media companies to remove or limit access to anti-vaccine posts and take down certain users' accounts, Politico reported.
The decision that regulated interaction between certain federal agencies and social media firms immediately took effect after the verdict was proclaimed.
BREAKING: The Biden Administration has officially filed a notice of appeal in the Missouri v. Biden censorship case after a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction order barring government officials from contacting social media companies to suppress lawful speech pic.twitter.com/DAbdGuFVFS
— ALX ?? (@alx) July 5, 2023
The case further argues that Biden and his regime suppress public discussion related to the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19), election disinformation as well as allegations that 2020 and 2022 polls were trigger. Recently, though shreds of evidence have been presented, Biden continues to deny his involvement in crimes committed by his family. Also, social media platforms have been exposed to have colluded with the government to censor content. These make these platforms seem like an "extension of the government" or accomplices in imposing total control and complete neglect of the freedom of speech.
But apart from maligning Judge Doughty for being a Trump appointee, some "legal experts" argue that his ruling did not give "adequate weight to the rights of Biden and others to cajole the companies to limit their publication of content that the officials considered objectionable."
A Department of Justice (DOJ) official said Wednesday night that attorneys plan to act "expeditiously" to seek a stay of the unusual injunction issued. Meanwhile, DOJ filed a notice of appeal the same evening, that will send Doughty's opinion and the accompanying injunction to the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals for review. That court is considered one of the most conservative federal appeals courts in the nation but previously ruled against Doughty on a couple of disputes about demands for depositions of federal officials in the same litigation.
Meanwhile, across the other side of the world, another tyrant is seeking another form of control – privacy watch and surveillance.
French President Emmanuel Macron has been working toward remotely activating snitch phones and it has actually already passed at the lower house of the bicameral French Parliament. The National Assembly on Wednesday approved the possibility of remotely activating mobile phones for police to listen to and film people targeted in organized crime and terrorism investigations, reports indicated.
Independent English news outlet Globe World News Echo reported that following the senators, the deputies validated by 80 votes against 24 this key article of the programming bill for justice, examined at first reading since Monday at the Palais-Bourbon. The deputies of the presidential camp, parties Republicans Les Republicains (LR) and National Rally (RN) voted in favor. Those of the New Ecological and Social People's Union (Nupes) voted against, like the president of the Liberties, Independents, Overseas and Territories (LIOT) group, Bertrand Pancher.
According to the law's Article 3, remote triggering of cameras or microphones of computers and other connected devices, such as telephones, without the knowledge of the persons concerned, with two different purposes is allowed. Same as for real-time geolocation for certain offenses such as those that are punishable by at least five years in prison. On the other hand, the activation of microphones and cameras to capture sound and images would be reserved for cases of terrorism and delinquency and organized crime. (Related: France may use 2024 Olympics to introduce Big Brother-style SURVEILLANCE.)
An earlier version of the bill passed the Senate, but the amendment will require the legislative body's approval before becoming law.
The seemingly "railroading" efforts of the said legislation by the Macron administration, which can be considered loaded with vested interests, did not go unnoticed by civil liberties advocates. The digital rights group La Quadrature du Net previously pointed out the technogy's great potential for abuse. As the bill isn't clear about what constitutes a serious crime, there are fears the French government might use this to target environmental activists and others who aren't grave threats. The organization also stressed security policies have a habit of expanding to less serious crimes. Genetic registration was only used for sex offenders initially but is now used for most crimes. Moreover, remote access may depend on security vulnerabilities.
"Police would be exploiting security holes instead of telling manufacturers how to patch those holes," La Quadrature stressed.
Meanwhile, Justice Minister Eric Dupond-Moretti assured the public that the powers would only be used for "dozens" of cases per year and that this was "far away" from the surveillance state of Orwell's 1984.
Visit Tyranny.news to read more about government measures that kill liberty and freedom in their nations.
Watch the video below that talks about the Missouri v. Biden case decision.
This video is from the alltheworldsastage channel on Brighteon.com.