Justice Served: Trump-appointed Judge Takes a Stand, Ending Social Media Tyranny and Upholding Conservative Voices

Judge Terry Doughty, a commendable appointment by President Trump, recently issued an imperative injunction and temporary restraining order, halting 11 federal agencies and multiple officials from engaging in dialogue with over 20 prominent social media companies about censoring perceived misinformation. Notably, this groundbreaking ruling does not prohibit discussions about national security threats, foreign influences, cyberattacks, illicit campaign donations, and voter suppression.

The landmark decision, decreed by the U.S. District Court of Western Louisiana, is founded on upholding free speech rights. In Judge Doughty’s expansive 155-page explanatory memo, he strongly voiced the significance of this action, asserting that if the plaintiff’s allegations are confirmed, the current scenario might constitute the most substantial infringement on free speech in U.S. history.

Reiterating the undeniable importance of free speech, Judge Doughty sided with the plaintiffs, stating that the harm is ongoing and likely to persist beyond the 2024 election cycle. Furthermore, he pointed out the federal government’s brazen disregard for First Amendment rights to free speech.

This case, aptly named the State of Missouri et al. versus Joseph R. Biden Jr. et al., was initiated by the states of Missouri and Louisiana along with a group of individuals. They accused the federal government’s executive branch of violating their fundamental First Amendment rights to express and hear opinions.

Judge Doughty’s injunction specifically targeted the Executive Office of the President and several other federal offices, including the DOJ, the FBI, the CISA, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It directed them to abstain from forcing or persuading leading social media platforms to suppress protected speech.

The censoring allegations revolve around various conservative opinions, including critiques of the 2020 presidential election’s integrity, the reliability of mail-in voting, the security of the COVID-19 virus’ lab-leak theory, mask effectiveness, lockdowns, vaccines, and critiques of President Joe Biden, among other things.

In court, the plaintiffs supplied documents alleging that the FBI investigated and labeled approximately 929,000 tweets involving political speech as “domestic disinformation” in 2019, referring them to social media companies for potential censoring. Of these, Twitter reportedly took down 422 accounts associated with these tweets.

This pivotal case extends to various renowned social media companies, including Facebook/Meta, Twitter, YouTube/Google, Instagram, TikTok, and LinkedIn. Interestingly, none of these firms were named defendants or parties to the injunction.

The plaintiffs assert that the defendants applied public pressure tactics, regular confidential meetings, and other communication methods to collaborate with and potentially coerce social media platforms into suppressing disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content. They also suggest that government officials threatened increased anti-trust scrutiny, additional regulations, and modifications to Section 230 of the Decency in Communications Act to pressure social media companies into increasing their censorship efforts.

Judge Doughty’s memorandum cited specific evidence in depositions, emails, letters, documents, and government officials’ public statements, demonstrating their exact words and correspondence with social media companies.

With a plethora of detailed evidence and a clear resolve to uphold the First Amendment, Judge Doughty’s ruling is a significant step in preserving free speech. This monumental injunction remains in effect until further resolution by court orders, the Court of Appeals, or the U.S. Supreme Court, though the DOJ has already declared its intent to appeal.