Posted BY: | NwoReport

In a recent court hearing, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod likened the Biden administration’s attempts to influence social media companies in removing alleged COVID-19 misinformation, claims about Hunter Biden’s laptop, and election-related content to tactics seen in mafia movies. The discussion occurred during a hearing to determine whether the ban on certain communications between federal agencies and companies, which the 5th Circuit had temporarily stayed, should be lifted or modified. This ban was implemented while a First Amendment lawsuit led by Missouri and Louisiana progressed.The judges on the panel, appointed by Republican presidents, referred to specific conversations suggesting that social media platforms were concerned about legal consequences if they did not comply with government requests to censor or reduce the visibility of content disapproved by the Biden administration. The court highlighted instances where federal officials employed strong-arm tactics or veiled threats to pressure these companies into compliance. Justice Department lawyer Daniel Tenny argued that the injunction’s wording was overly broad, potentially hindering the government from alerting the public about false information about natural disasters. The judges, however, emphasized that the concern was not about generic alerts but rather about documented private conversations that displayed coercive pressure. Tenny attempted to downplay the severity of the pressure and maintained that the interactions alternated between friendly and testy tones rather than explicit orders to comply.

Trending: “Hunter Biden’s Business Partner’s 36 White House Visits: Surprising Lack of Coverage by Mainstream Media”

The judges expressed skepticism and pointed out that the nature of the communications resembled a supervisor-subordinate relationship.The court also addressed concerns about the government potentially propagating false information coercively and inquired about legal remedies in such cases. Tenny refuted claims of government coercion and denied factual evidence supporting such allegations.Additionally, arguments were presented regarding the legal standing of the state plaintiffs in the case and the impact of recent developments, such as changes in social media ownership and policies.Attorney John Sauer, representing the State of Louisiana, contended that the government had compelled social media platforms to remove critics of its policies, citing specific examples such as the removal of content by Alex Berenson and Tucker Carlson. Sauer emphasized that the court should consider congressional amicus briefs and suggested that ongoing injuries could be demonstrated under multiple theories.The 5th Circuit did not provide a timeline for when a written opinion would be issued regarding these matters.