This is one of those judicial court rulings that needs to be bookmarked because the judicial panel outlines exactly what the Biden administration and Govt officials did, in their blatant violations of the First Amendment. [SEE pdf HERE]
The Fifth Circuit court of appeals outlines how the Biden administration totally violated the first amendment, by forcing and coercing social media and other organizations to ban speech, block opinion and censor information they determined was against their interests. Any time a progressive democrat claims their leadership would not destroy this nation, simply put the appellate court ruling back in front of their face and walk away.
The panel decision modified the injunction against federal officials to now read:
Defendants, and their employees and agents, shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech. That includes, but is not limited to, compelling the platforms to act, such as by intimating that some form of punishment will follow a failure to comply with any request, or supervising, directing, or otherwise meaningfully controlling the social-media companies’ decision-making processes.
At the government’s request, the Fifth Circuit stayed the order for 10 days to give the government time to petition for a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court. Almost like bait, the Fifth Circuit is seemingly hoping the insufferable & ideological Lawfare operatives in the DOJ will take this decision higher.
SCOTUS would destroy the Biden administration on this constitutional issue. The evidence of what took place is overwhelming in support of the original court order against Biden, and the subsequent affirmation from the fifth circuit.
[Full Case Details Available HERE]
I’m not that sure the Supreme Court has the courage to stand up for what is right. They have certainly not shown that to be true when we needed it most. Never forget – AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE NO STANDING.
joan,
You repeat an oft repeated and IMHO very erroneous refrain.
SCOTUS just destroyed two vital pillars of the left; Fed Govt protection of Abortion as a “right” (R v W) and equally destructive Affirmative Action.
The Texas case was fatally flawed, and if not dismissed would open the door to California dictating to Texas that Texas must use “ranked choice” voting, in its elections; THATS the road we would have gone down, had SCOTUS agreed that SOME States, hadthe legal standing to challenge how OTHER states conduct their elections.
It was a desperate move, but it was NOT the right route, to challenge the 2020 election, and SCOTUS was correct to not “go there”.
Repeat bullshit, you amplify it. Don’t DO that.
Very true but I am with Joan and am still am very gun-shy on all courts and not convinced they will rule in accordance with the Constitution and written law in any given case. I don’t trust any court, judge, district attorney, DOJ, FBI or any other government institution anymore.
I grew up in the 60’s with a healthy dose of distrust of the government, the only thing that has changed since then is the government has gotten worse, more corrupt and less willing to meet the needs of the country and the people.
I said exactly the same thing back in 2020: The courts are the wrong venue. Selecting Presidential Electors is the Constitutional purview of the state legislatures, therefore any relief sought is a political decision for the legislature. Presidential electors are a unique case fundamentally different from every other election. The courts were right to resist being dragged into it.
But for the treachery of Mike Pence refusing to perform his duty sending contested electors back to the states the legislatures would have had the final say. Even if they decided to affirm the Biden electors at least the process would have had a chance to work.
“But for the treachery of Mike Pence refusing to perform his duty sending contested electors back to the states the legislatures would have had the final say.”
That was exactly the reason the J6 riot was incited by the FBI. The procedure was suspended and the confirmation rammed through.
Sorry Dutchman, say what you want, I consider SCOTUS telling the American people they don’t have standing in a lawsuit that will determine who is their next president to be bullshit. You can gloss it over any way you choose but those words, in my humble opinion, should have never been uttered by SCOTUS. We the people not only have “standing” in any legal undertaking that involves who will be OUR next president, but have been given the authority in the Bill of Rights to “throw off” a corrupt government.
Not taking sides because I see merit in both of your points.
But I think the thing with SCOTUS and standing had more to do with shenanigans that McConnell, Pelosi and Pence pulled with the so called ‘emergency’ on J6 that Regitiger outlined thoroughly.
It seems that ‘they’ set up those events where SCOTUS would have to rule that way.
Hence the new unconstitutional law preventing a VP acting in his constitutional duties.
I could be wrong though, just my understanding of the whole thing outlined by SD and Regitiger several months ago. Didn’t like it but it made a sound legal argument.
Black Knight I think you are spot on!
The regitiger post was found to be entirely erroneous. I asked him what happened and he hand waved it off and then stopped responding.
Could you please expound or a point to where you
or someone else has already explained how the post was erroneous by Regitiger ? Not being smart alecky, really want to understand this.
““throw off” a corrupt government.” Including the “Supreme Court”
Only reason they overturned roe v wade was to give the left fuel to motivate their base and demonize the right, which Lindsey Graham then added more fuel to the fire to by saying the decision didn’t go far enough.
This is what they were challenging: that officials and judges in the four states violated the U.S. Constitution’s Electors Clause (Art. II, § 1, cl. 2) in the 2020 election, thus harming all American citizens because some states bind their electors to the winner of the election. They were not directly challenging (Art. I, § 4, cl. 2) as far as I can determine.
I’m inclined to go with Joan on this.
We got Obama care because the Supreme Court failed to uphold its duty.
The supremes seem to be hot and cold lately.
A judges republic is a contradiction to what the republic should be anyways.
Why are we all relying on such things.
I always thought it was we the people, not we the people give our consent to the judges.
Kavanaugh and ACB are worthless
IMESHO, it would seem that every resident in a state with any evidence of election fraud should have “standing” to demand a full, objective, forensic investigation
Exactly
“I’m not that sure the Supreme Court has the courage to stand up for what is right”
The Democrats are afraid that the Supreme Court has the courage!
SCOTUS affirmed Obamacare.
As the administration as a whole has been found guilty of a first amendment violation, surely it won’t be a problem barring those who committed the crime off the ballot.
Since when has a Court of Appeals ever stopped them? This had better get to the Supreme Court and they had better do their jobs or their positions won’t mean poop to anyone anymore. Next up. The rampant abuse of emergency powers by Governors and Presidents. Lastly, we need to eliminate the whole Federal Government! Just kidding. Not. A complete overhaul of Government might do it, but I am not convinced.
Just to review; this CASE, that is the original case, brought by Jim Hoft (of TGP) and then joined by States of Loisianna and Missouri, is ONGOING.
They are STILL IN DISCOVERY; however, just the initial evidence the plaintiffs introduced, to demonstrate they had enough of a case to persuade the Judge to allow the case to proceed, was SO Compelling, that he issued this preliminary injunction, ordering the Fed Govt. to STOP.
THAT is the order, which the 11th circuit just affirmed. Not sure many understand just HOW F*cked the Govt. is, in this lawsuit.
YEA !!!!!!!
Didn’t know the 11th has gotten involved.
Let’s see that impacts Trump’s cases in GA and FL.
Great analysis Dutch and thanks.
Creepy just ignores SCOTUS rulings anyway. See student loans
They’ll just ignore the decision.
Rules are for [the] little people.
Does this judgement allow for the repeal of President Obama signed HR 4310 too?
SCOTUS would destroy the Biden administration on this constitutional issue. The evidence of what took place is overwhelming in support of the original court order against Biden, and the subsequent affirmation from the fifth circuit.
———–
First time since 1948, propaganda is now legal in the (Soviet) U.S.
On 12/29/12, President Obama signed HR 4310, the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. Section 1078 (thomas.loc. gov/cgi-
bin/query/z?c112:H.R.4310:) of the bill authorizes the use of propaganda inside the US, which had previously been banned since 1948 when the Smith- Mundt Act was passed.
History of Section 1078:
1) First version of NDAA is proposed, does not include domestic propaganda legislation (3/29/12)
2) Domestic propaganda legislation introduced by Rep. Thornberry as stand- alone legislation not related to NDAA, HR 5736, entitled ‘Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012.’ Defeated in committee vote. (5/10/12)
3) Exact text of HR 5736 introduced as Section 1097 of third version of NDAA, which was approved by the house. House sends bill to Senate. Section 1097 is entitled ‘Dissemination Abroad of Information about the United States.’ The text of this Section 1097 is virtually identical to that of HR 5736, except one word is removed (see below)*. (5/18/12)
4) NDAA referred to Senate. Section 1097 appears in fourth version of bill, ‘Referred in Senate’ version. In this version, there is a Section 1078, listed as ‘Authority for Corps of Engineers to Construct Projects Critical to Navigation Safety’ (6/19/12)
5) Section 1097 does not appear ‘Public Print’ version, nor does Section 1078. There is no section regarding ‘Dissemination Abroad of Information.’(12/4/12)
6) In, ‘Engrossed Amendment Senate’ version, Section 1097 reappears as ‘Transportation of Individuals to and from Facilities of Department of Veterans Affairs.’ There is no section regarding ‘Dissemination Abroad of Information.’ (12/12/12)
7) Final version of bill is returned to House and Senate for re-approval. Section 1097 does not appear, and the ‘Transportation of Individuals’ clause does not appear elsewhere in the bill. Section 1078 reappears, now entitled ‘Dissemination Abroad of Information about the United States.’ The text of this Section 1078 is identical to the text of Section 1097 from the third version of the bill discussed in point #3. (12/21/12)
8) Obama signs this final version of HR 4310. (12/29/12)
That is the basic history of this bill. All information is sourced from Library of Congress.
*There is only one difference between the text of HR 5736 and Section 1078, and it is that the word ‘primarily’ from ‘intended primarily for foreign audiences’ appears in HR 5736 but is removed in Section 1078 of HR 4310 and the wording is ‘intended for foreign audiences.’
Below I’m going to paste the important parts of the bill’s text to help your writers. Bracketed text is mine. The beginning of the bill is misleading, and apparent reversals of clauses in it are made in subsequent subsections (however, if the reader uses a broad interpretation, they’re not really reversals, only expansions on the original meaning):
SEC. 1097. DISSEMINATION ABROAD OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE UNITED STATES. (a) United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 [aka Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which banned domestic propaganda]- Section 501 of the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1461) is amended to read as follows:
GENERAL AUTHORIZATION
Sec. 501. (a) The Secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors are authorized to use funds appropriated or otherwise made available for public diplomacy information programs to provide for the preparation, dissemination, and use of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States, its people, and its policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, the Internet, and other information media, including social media, and through information centers, instructors, and other direct or indirect means of communication.
[using a broad interpretation, ‘intended for foreign audiences abroad’ could apply to any material that could at any point after release be potentially made available to any person who lives outside of the US]SEC. 208. CLARIFICATION ON DOMESTIC DISTRIBUTION OF PROGRAM MATERIAL
(a) In General- No funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States. This section shall apply only to programs carried out pursuant to the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.), the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act (22 U.S.C. 1465 et seq.), and the
Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act (22 U.S.C. 1465aa et seq.). This section shall not prohibit or delay the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from providing information about its operations, policies, programs, or program material, or making such available, to the media, public, or Congress, in accordance with other applicable law.
(b) Rule of Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from engaging in any medium or form of communication, either directly or indirectly, because a United States domestic audience is or may be thereby exposed to program material, or based on a presumption of such exposure. Such material may be made available within the United States and disseminated, when appropriate, pursuant to sections 502 and 1005 of the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1462 and 1437), except that nothing in this section may be construed to authorize the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors to disseminate within the United States any program material prepared for dissemination abroad on or before the effective date of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012.
[Note that section B expressly allows the use of propaganda domestically,as long as there is some possibility that at least one non-US-citizen will eventually receive the given communication]
This bill appears to not only open the door to legalization of the dissemination of propaganda in America, but would also legalize covert infiltration of media organizations by government agents and even the creation of media outlets that legally operate entirely as government
fronts.
Nobody ever talks about this root cause for why things are going so poorly in the media. Thanks for bringing it up.
Once people understand that the judicial system is broken as well as the ballot system, there will be hell to pay. Right now people still have a little faith in the courts, but that is fast eroding. Plan accordingly.
One would hope, but, yes indeed the whole judicial system is broken.
We are surrounded by evidence of corruption. Time to develop grassroot FOIA trees.
Is this not the definition of Propaganda?
The Fifth Circuit court of appeals outlines how the Biden administration totally violated the first amendment, by forcing and coercing social media and other organizations to ban speech, block opinion and censor information they determined was against their interests.
——
Propaganda is the more or less systematic effort to manipulate other people’s beliefs, attitudes, or actions by means of symbols (words, gestures, banners, monuments, music, clothing, insignia, hairstyles, designs on coins and postage stamps, and so forth). Deliberateness and a relatively heavy emphasis on manipulation distinguish propaganda from casual conversation or the free and easy exchange of ideas. Propagandists have a specified goal or set of goals. To achieve these, they deliberately select facts, arguments, and displays of symbols and present them in ways they think will have the most effect. To maximize effect, they may omit or distort pertinent facts or simply lie, and they may try to divert the attention of the reactors (the people they are trying to sway) from everything but their own propaganda.
—————
Rule (b) of HR 4310
(b) Rule of Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from engaging in any medium or form of communication, either directly or indirectly, because a United States domestic audience is or may be thereby exposed to program material, or based on a presumption of such exposure.
The Whitehouse and other federal agents and agencies are documented running a fascist information suppression operation.
Maybe people attending Biden’s appearances should present him with a stiff nazi salute. Clicking their heels would be a nice touch.
I’m only partly joking.
The nazi group in Florida all over the news were recorded saying that they hate Trump & Desantis and support Biden. For real.
If the DOJ is willing to ignore existing laws or rules, then why should we expect that the actions taken or not taken by the SCOTUS will matter? Therefore, any decision reached by the SCOTUS is at best a shaming of Biden’s DOJ.
Rule (b) of HR 4310 “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from engaging in any medium or form of communication, either directly or indirectly, because a United States domestic audience is or may be thereby exposed to program material, or based on a presumption of such exposure.“
First, the shame, call them out on their illegality, then, the ability to hold them accountable is possible. Without identifying the problem, resolution is impossible. Not that I have hope for them being held accountable, but there is value in the process. It’s the same with impeaching Biden for treason, bribery, etc. This must be done before the acts can be addressed. Of course, the current congress will not adjudicate against the tyrant, but, the crime will be on the books correctly identified. Prosecution can and often does occur at a later date.
Let see, if your reasoning holds up. The SCOTUS has not acted on an Executive Order 13224 since September 23, 2001. Why would they decide to act now, on this issue?
Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, is unconstitutional. Why has it not been removed by SCOTUS?
I had a somewhat similar issues with my designs. Decisions were made too many times based on politics, not the truth.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution
is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects
the right of the people to Religion and Expression.
As ratified by the States:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The Supremes will punt.
If the Supreme Court declines to hear it, then the Circuit Court decision stands. (IE, the injunction on the govt is still in force)
Alito is the Justice assigned to the fifth circuit
The federal government and state governments are more actively engaging the public, going as far in one state (NJ) to program motorist information billboards to directly solicit any information regarding terrorism.
Why are they suddenly soliciting terror threat calls? In order to ‘get a finger on the pulse’ of elusive (non-existent) threat?
OR
To create the false image of a growing issue by loading call centers with bogus vague BS. So they can demonize, isolate and drop boot heels on Trump and his supporters necks.
Examples: Alarming rise in MAGA fueled hate and domestic terror threats. Few more deranged white shooters in black neighborhoods.
Listen for the growing drumbeat and notice the increasing dark clouds intended to influence the 2024 election. DOJ/FBI long ago labeled MAGA & parents as domestic terrorists. Uncounted false 2A flags supposedly by right wing extremists.
If SCOTUS doesn’t support the Appellate Court decision, the Fat Lady will have sung the last note. It will be time for the next civil war.
Correct me if I am wrong, but did this court also exempt the State Dept., CISA and another agency I can’t recall – all also named defendants in the suit – from this judgment?
Cannot say that I’m surprised.
How many times now has a majority of the Supreme Court ruled in such a convoluted way to have their cake and eat it too?
Obamacare as a tax is just one example. And, that’s on Chief Justice Roberts.
Expecting the Supreme Court to be completely faithful in ruling on the right side of the Constitution is naive, with it’s current makeup.