Supreme Court Lets Biden Regime Turn Back On the Digital Censorship: Here Is the Latest in Vital Free Speech Case, Missouri v. Biden, where Gateway Pundit is a Litigant

#BREAKING: Supreme Court *freezes* Louisiana district court ruling that would’ve barred a wide range of contacts between executive branch officials and social media companies.

Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch publicly dissent in separate opinion. pic.twitter.com/YL40IfzwSg

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) October 20, 2023

Today the Supreme Court announced that it is granting “certiorari”, meaning that it will hear the case, to the litigants in Missouri v. Biden.

However, it also stopped the injunction against the government continuing to censor American citizens. Meaning that, the government will be able to turn the censorship regime back on while the court hears the case.

The Missouri v. Biden case involves the question of whether the Biden regime can use federal government resources to overtly censor American citizens, a practice aggressively begun under the COVID lockdowns. The case has revealed a wide array of government agencies and officials engaged in telling social media companies exactly what to censor, whom to ban, and what speech is permissible.

Legal experts describe the Missouri v. Biden as the most important case for free speech in at least a decade.

In several notable instances turned over in discovery, the government was even caught referring a case of censorship originating from the Ukrainian government where an American citizen was too critical of the Ukraine war. The American government was commanding social media companies to censor American citizens on behalf of Ukraine.

The case was filed by the Attorney Generals of Missouri and Louisiana, filing in the federal Western District of Louisiana. The trial court judge granted an injunction limiting the ability of the federal government to continue engaging in acts of censorship. The 5th Circuit originally stopped that injunction, but upon a three-judge panel’s review ultimately modified that injunction to stop a wider group of agencies from engaging in censorship.

The government has aggressively appealed the case demanding that its right to censor American speech online not be challenged, stopped, or slowed.

Notably most media outlets have chronically misreported this story, obliquely referring to the case involving “communications” between the government and social media companies. They don’t disclose that those ‘communications’ were specific demands for censorship and deplatforming against specific speakers for the content of what they were saying.

GO READ THE WHOLE THING.