Back in June, the Supreme Court overturned an injunction against the case, then called Murthy v. Missouri, that barred the White House, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), CISA, and the Surgeon General's office from conspiring with social media companies like Facebook to suppress speech.
Many people were targeted by the kind of censorship that Missouri v. Biden aims to remediate. Plaintiffs include Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff, Aaron Kheriaty, and Jill Hines, all of whom were deemed by the Supreme Court to lack sufficient standing.
Because the SCOTUS decision was made based on limited discovery at the preliminary injunction stage of the proceedings, the U.S. District Court in Louisiana's western district decided that more is needed to substantiate that injunction if it is going to remain intact.
"Initial findings from the limited discovery available at the preliminary injunction stage revealed an extensive network of censorship involving more than a dozen agencies and over a hundred government officials, possibly implicating many more yet uncovered," reports explain.
"These agencies were reportedly directed by the White House to manipulate social media content, particularly contradicting the federal government's stances on issues from Covid-19 to electoral processes."...<<<Read More>>>...