Court Claims There Was No Censorship Collusion Among Big Tech Companies

( )- California and Ohio federal judges backed big tech companies in claims by users of social media platforms in a case that claimed that federal agencies forced Facebook and Twitter to censor misinformation about COVID-19.

Late last week, federal judges in those states dismissed two separate First Amendment cases because of a lack of legal standing. Both of the lawsuits were claiming that the two social media giants punished the plaintiffs using their terms of service.

Jenin Younes, a lawyer for the New Civil Liberties Alliance — which was the counsel to the plaintiffs in the case in Ohio — remarked after the ruling that:

“The judges are looking at this very technically.”

She said that the fault in the case was that there was no direct order to censor any content. That being said, Younes believes that the three clients she has in this case will stand a better chance with the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The losses in these lawsuits were obviously hard for the plaintiffs to accept. But, on a much larger scale, there were broader lawsuits that were filed last week that could have much bigger implications for the entire country.

Attorneys general in both Louisiana and Missouri filed suits that accuse the Biden administration of “colluding” with big tech firms to censor information regarding stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop, along with security of voting by mail during the COVID-19 pandemic and about the origins of the coronavirus.

The suits were filed against specific officials in the White House, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, press secretary Jen Psaki and President Joe Biden himself. In the lawsuits, the attorneys general argue that the officials worked with Twitter, YouTube and Meta to censor any information that was posted to their sites that would be disadvantageous to their political agenda.

Another person named in the suits is Nina Jankowicz, who was recently appointed to serve as the leader of the “Disinformation Governance Board” at the Department of Homeland Security.

In the short amount of time since her appointment, Jankowicz has already received plenty of criticism over past social media posts she made. One included a denial that the Hunter Biden laptop story was legitimate, and claimed it was disinformation coming out of Russia.

The suit states:

“Notoriously, social-media platforms aggressively censored core political speech by then-President Trump and the Trump campaign raising concerns about the security of voting by mail in the run-up to the November 2020 presidential election.”

They further say the defendants “coerced, threatened, and pressured social media platforms to censor disfavored speakers and viewpoints by using threats of adverse government action.”

In filing the suits, the attorneys general are asking the court to find the defendants guilty of exceeding its authority under statute and violating the First Amendment.

What the attorneys general have said they are trying to do by filing the suit is preventing federal officials from suppressing free speech any more than they already have.

Jeff Landry, the attorney general of Louisiana, recently said:

“Big Tech has become an extension of Biden’s Big Government, and neither are protecting the freedoms of Americans; rather, they are suppressing truth and demonizing those who think differently.”