English 
Español 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyhAFOdWXOI
Prague, 12.7.2023 – The English version follows below
By David Signer, Chicago 07/06/2023. We comment on this article that appeared in Zurich, in the Neue Zuercher Zeitung.
As is well known, President Biden’s administration illegally influenced platforms such as Facebook or Twitter to censor posts about COVID 19 or political elections. A federal judge has ruled, that, from now on, the authorities will no longer be able to exert their influence on digital platforms.
A federal judge in Louisiana has prohibited President Biden’s administration from maintaining contact with social networks. This block is intended to prevent government censorship. A year ago, the two attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri filed a lawsuit against the government; they considered the cooperation between the authorities and the online platforms to be undue influence, being even a censorship campaign. They mainly objected to the blocking of publications that criticized vaccines, but also publications about masks, the origin of the pandemic, the security of political elections and the Hunter Biden laptop issue. Control del mundo mediático.
The Sentence
Last Tuesday, July 4th, US Independence Day, Federal Judge Terry Doughty ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. He confirmed that the federal authorities exceeded their powers and violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees, among other things, freedom of speech.
The court decision falls on agencies such as the Department of Health and Human Services and the FBI. It prohibits any contact with companies that operate social networks, which are intended to encourage, pressure or induce the removal, cancellation, or reduction of content, insofar as these publications are covered by the right to freedom of expression.
Excluded from blocking are contacts for publications about criminal activities and conspiracies, as well as content indicating a threat to national security or other dangers.
Official recognition of the conspiracy and deep state
Covid 19: La hipótesis de la conspiración I
La Hypótesis de la conspiración II
Judge Doughty uses strong words in his reasoning and even referred to George Orwell’s novel “1984” and a totalitarian surveillance state. During the COVID 19 pandemic, in which widespread doubt and uncertainty reigned, the U.S. Government appears to have assumed a role similar to that of the Orwellian “Ministry of Truth.” Conservative federal judge Doughty who nominated in 2017 by then-President Donald Trump.
For his part, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who had filed the original lawsuit, had already called attention to this issue, with a remarkable choice of words. He said that the “deep state” had planted a seed of oppression and government censorship. This seed had been nurtured since Biden took office and had ended up growing rapidly, he said. The term “Deep State” refers to the idea that there is a hidden group of powerful people beyond the elected government who actually direct the destiny of the state. This hypothesis has been raised repeatedly by Trump and his supporters, as well as by the conspiracy theory QAnon.
Heated debate on freedom and censorship in the networks.
The government is expected to appeal the decision. According to the Wall Street Journal, there are compelling legal objections to the federal judge’s ruling. However, the decision is important for two reasons: first, it is part of a broader debate surrounding freedom of speech on social networks. The debate has also been stoked by Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter. Musk is a vehement advocate for maximum freedom on online platforms. He re-granted Trump access to Twitter last November, after it was suspended in the wake of the Capitol Hill storm on January 6, 2021. However, Trump has so far stuck to his own platform, Truth Social.
Second, the ruling is a symptom of the tendency of the judiciary in the U.S. to increasingly make far-reaching decisions that would really belong to Congress. Examples are the Supreme Court’s rulings on abortion, the right to bear arms or affirmative action.
