Arguments begin in landmark government censorship case heard before Louisiana federal court

Oral arguments for a preliminary injunction in a landmark government censorship case were heard Friday at the United States Courthouse in Monroe.

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed a lawsuit against President Joe Biden and numerous high-ranking officials across multiple federal agencies last May, accusing them of colluding with social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to censor and suppress speech under the guise of combating dangerous misinformation.

Louisiana Solicitor General Liz Murrill and Missouri Solicitor General Josh Divine are leading the legal team on behalf of the states and five private plaintiffs. During Friday's hearing, attorneys for the legal team and opposing team presented their arguments before Western District of Louisiana Chief Judge Terry Doughty.

Louisiana Special Assistant Attorney General John Sauer presented allegations of federal censorship activities, including naming White House officials such Rob Flaherty who engaged in a relentless pressure campaign to coerce platforms into censoring disfavored viewpoints on social media, CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency) "switchboards" reports of so-called "misinformation" from state and local governments to platforms for censorship.

Kyla Snow, attorney representing the federal government, said that the plaintiff's claims were "speculative" and "hypothetical," arguing that the claims, such as CISA "switching" were false as the agency had not participated in such activity since 2020. Snow said social media companies have not shown irreputable harm that warrants a preliminary injunction.

The legal filing highlights 1,432 facts showing top White House officials and other agencies coercing and colluding with social media platforms to censor free speech, which Divine alleges is "one of the biggest violations in the history of this country."

"We have at this point, greater than 20,000 pages of documents," Divine said. "All explaining what's going on here. I think the judge is really.... You can tell from his piercing questions that he really understand what's going on here."

The case should be a caution to the federal government that if they are going to engage in a systematic operation to sensor people’s First Amendment right, Murrill said, they are going to be challenged.

“… and that we are watching and we’re going to stop it,” Murrill said. ”It ought to be a cautionary tale to the American people to understand that the government can and does sometime collude to violate your constitutional right. We are states that are pushing back on that. Our job is to also defend the state and federal constitutions, and so we stepped up to do that for our people. I think everyone oughta constantly be vigilant in their First Amendment rights but this case illustrates how hard that can be when it’s a government-wide operation and how important it is that other officials step in and say stop.”

Follow Ian Robinson on Twitter @_irobinsonand on Facebook at https://bit.ly/3vln0w1.

Support local journalism by subscribing at https://cm.thenewsstar.com/specialoffer.

This article originally appeared on Monroe News-Star: Federal censorship case from Louisiana Attorney General heard in Monroe