Joe Biden executed the greatest infringement of civil liberties in a generation | Column

The Biden Administration coerced media companies in an effort to manipulate public perception about a wide range of topics. This is no conspiracy theory. It’s the subject of ongoing litigation in Louisiana.

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth,’” wrote U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty.

Americans must demand a reckoning for the federal government's well-intentioned descent into tyranny.

When the government attempts to stifle political speech, the Supreme Court has long held that First Amendment protections are at their zenith. Silencing dissent is the fantasy of many politicians, but plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden contend that it happened right here in America when our nation was at its most vulnerable.

Hear more Tennessee Voices: Get the weekly opinion newsletter for insightful and thought provoking columns.

Biden Administration exploited an opportunity

The censorship policies of social media companies are a subject of perpetual debate. American citizens have known for years that companies like Meta, Google, Twitter, and others restricted, removed, and outright banned certain individuals and content.

In almost every instance, the justification has been well-intended. Combating misinformation, protecting public health, and limiting hate speech are just a few examples.

Private companies are entitled to build out platforms as they see fit to serve their customers and users. The First Amendment generally doesn’t apply to private speech restrictions. As such, the Biden Administration recognized an opportunity for exploitation.

According to Doughty’s order, the Federal Government used “various meetings, emails, follow-up contacts, and the threat of amending Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act” to “coerce and/or encourage social-media platforms to suppress free speech.” As a result, “content was seemingly suppressed even if it did not violate social-media policies.”

Sign up for Latino Tennessee Voices newsletter:Read compelling stories for and with the Latino community in Tennessee. 

White House tried to suppress speech

Amendments to Section 230 are a favorite stick of politicians because it’s tantamount to telling these companies that they’re legally liable for user-posted comments and content.

Many conservatives see legacy media companies as co-conspirators rather than victims. At the moment, Doughty disagrees. “Thus far [the evidence] shows that the social-media companies cooperated due to coercion, not because of a conspiracy,” he wrote.

Shockingly, the few headlines about this case have focused almost exclusively on Doughty’s order restricting numerous federal agencies and Biden administration officials from communicating with social-media companies about removing content.

Talk about burying the lede.

The evidence already produced at this stage of the trial is ghastly for the Biden Administration. It demonstrates patterns and practices across numerous federal agencies to impermissibly restrict constitutionally protected speech.

Sign up for Black Tennessee Voices newsletter:Read compelling columns by Black writers from across Tennessee. 

Government overstepped its boundaries

Doughty’s order provides a laundry list of topics that received such treatment: “Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed.”

Citing Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, Doughty noted that “the government is responsible for private action arising out of ‘pervasive entwinement of public institutions and public officials in the private entity’s composition and workings.’”

Even absent a conspiracy with social media companies, the government remains responsible for the speech restrictions that emerged from its pervasive overreach.

To justify its actions, the federal government has argued that it merely engaged in government speech and continued practices initiated under the prior administration. The evidential record shows the government went well beyond the bounds of simple speech. Democrats and Republicans struggle to understand that pointing to the similar misconduct of a political opponent isn’t a credible defense. The government’s lawyers suffer from the same malady.

President’s conduct is an affront to American liberty

Media outlets are largely handling this case with kid gloves because they’re in danger of being exposed as well. What threats, offers, and access has the government lobbed at Fox News? How about CNN? How much are we reading and hearing that is the direct product of the government elevating and suppressing content to manipulate Americans.

Through its actions, the Biden Administration affords tremendous credence to claims that many of the voices and media gatekeepers in our nation are little more than government apparatchiks.

Who then can credibly speak truth to power?

Public persuasion by government officials is both protected speech and necessary for the functioning of our society. Shadowy manipulation of information through third parties is another matter entirely. We simply mustn’t stand for it regardless of our partisan inclinations.

If the Biden Administration wished to curtail speech, the president should have proposed legislation. Congress could have debated it, and, if passed, courts could have reviewed it. Instead, President Joe Biden executed one of the greatest infringements of American civil liberties in a generation.

A young Benjamin Franklin noted, “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”

The Biden Administration’s alleged conduct is a direct affront to American liberty. Where and when it began is a topic for scholars to debate. Right now, we must loudly demand to know the breadth of such behavior and end it.

USA TODAY Network Tennessee Columnist Cameron Smith is a Memphis-born, Brentwood-raised recovering political attorney raising four boys in Nolensville, Tenn., with his particularly patient wife, Justine. Direct outrage or agreement to smith.david.cameron@gmail.com or @DCameronSmith on Twitter. Agree or disagree? Send a letter to the editor to letters@tennessean.com.

This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Biden executed greatest civil liberties infringement in a generation