Lauren Moye, FISM News
Missouri and Louisiana attorneys general received a major win Tuesday in their case that claims President Joe Biden’s administration and Big Tech companies colluded to violate the First Amendment and suppress free speech.
A federal district judge ordered the White House to turn over documents crucial to answering the question, “Did Joe Biden and his officials have social media suppress truthful stories [that], if learned, would harm their reputations?”
Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt shared the news on Twitter Tuesday:
🚨 BREAKING: A federal court granted our Office's request to collect discovery and documents from top ranking Biden officials and social media companies to get to the bottom of their alleged collusion to suppress and censor free speech. pic.twitter.com/qu6oenVq9G
— Attorney General Eric Schmitt (@AGEricSchmitt) July 12, 2022
One of the most crucial cases that Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry are pursuing is the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal during the 2020 presidential election season.
When the news first broke that then-presidential hopeful Joe Biden’s son had left a laptop containing potentially incriminating evidence at a computer repair shop, multiple news agencies claimed the story was false information.
Meta and Twitter cracked down on shares of the story, ultimately preventing the public from learning of the evidence of Hunter Biden’s alleged deep corruption and potential crimes.
It’s now well documented that the pornographic images and shady dealings with international businesses are likely factual and the laptop did, in fact, belong to Hunter Biden. Furthermore, President Joe Biden had detailed knowledge of his son’s dealings, despite denying any knowledge or wrongdoing during a presidential election debate.
If the documented information is true and accurate, it suggests that Hunter Biden forms a direct link and serious conflict of interest between foreign entities and his father, the leader of the free world. His dealings could create a security risk by providing businesses and governments in other countries a pathway to buy greater access to President Biden.
The court order approved the states’ probe into emails and other documents that may reveal more information about communication between top White House officials and key players at Meta, Twitter, and YouTube.
Schmitt and Landry hope this will make public the directives the social media companies might have received in regards to releasing information to the public or suppressing it.
The lawsuit, originally filed in May by the two attorneys general, also touches on other important topics where free speech may have been suppressed over the past year.
Schmitt said on Twitter that the lawsuit alleges collusion “with those social media companies to suppress speech about the Hunter Biden laptop story, the origins of COVID-19, the efficacy of masks, and election integrity.”
Specific examples in the lawsuit include how, under the direction of Anthony Fauci, chief medical adviser to the president, these social media giants shut down conversations hypothesizing that Covid-19 leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China, and that cloth face masks were ineffective to control the spread of the virus.
Reports have since shown that the Wuhan leak is a possible origin of the pandemic. Research also questions the effectiveness of cloth masks, suggesting the masks may have even increased covid-related deaths.
Research also shows negative side effects for young children forced to mask. By leaning on social media giants – the prominent form of communication in the modern world – to suppress key conversations, the lawsuit alleges that the White House has infringed on Americans’ First Amendment rights.
The lawsuit names President Biden, Fauci, then Press Secretary Jen Psaki, Director of the now-defunct Department of Homeland Security’s “Disinformation Governance Board” Nina Jankowicz, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, and others as officials who engaged in this purported wide-reaching collusion.