MAGA is fighting back against the mob and so are we… but we need your help. Join our growing army and click here to subscribe to Revolver. Or give the gift of Revolver—simply select the annual subscription and select “This is a gift” on the next page. If you want to give extra during this critical time, you can make a one-time or recurring monthly donation — whether it’s $1 or $1,000, every bit goes towards the battle to save our great nation.

On Tuesday, July 4th (appropriately), a U.S. district judge appointed by President Trump put the brakes on the Biden administration’s attempt to play internet police. The judge thinks the regime likely crossed a line with the First Amendment by trying to crush what they like to call “disinformation” on social media. Now, thanks to this first major ruling, the government is forced to back off when it comes to controlling what’s said online.

Wall Street Journal:

In a 155-page ruling issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty of Louisiana barred White House officials and multiple federal agencies from contacting social-media companies with the purpose of suppressing political views and other speech normally protected from government censorship.

The judge’s injunction came in a lawsuit led by the Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana who alleged that the Biden administration fostered a sprawling “federal censorship enterprise.” The federal government, the lawsuit claimed, pressured social-media platforms to scrub away disfavored views about Covid-19 health policies, the origins of the pandemic, the Hunter Biden laptop story, election security and other sensitive topics.

The case is among the most potentially consequential First Amendment battles pending in the courts, testing the limits on government scrutiny of social-media content on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other major platforms.

Judge Doughty blasted the regime in his ruling, claiming they created a  “dystopian” scenario.

“[T]he evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario,” wrote Judge Doughty. “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.’”

The judge said the plaintiffs “have presented substantial evidence in support of their claims that they were the victims of a far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign.”

Image

What the regime did under the guise of “controlling disinformation” was especially egregious, since many of the so-called “conspiracy theories” related to COVID-19 and the vaccine have turned out to be true. However, even if all those theories were pure nonsense, it’s irrelevant. Americans have the right to express their opinions. The government’s role isn’t to regulate the internet.

In response to this bombshell ruling, Biden’s media battalion sprang into action, coming out in full force to protect the regime. The New York Times took the lead in this charge, dishing out some of their most brazen and unapologetic propaganda to date by claiming the ruling could hinder the efforts of the Biden regime to “curtail disinformation.” Yes, God willing, NYT, because we’ve all had enough of the Biden babysitting regime.

Here’s what Charlie Kirk said about the New York Times reaction to the ruling in a tweet:

Instead of simply reporting the facts that a federal judge just delivered a blockbuster injunction in Missouri v Biden blocking this administration from outsourcing its censorship regime to social media companies, The New York Times spins it as “a ruling that could curtail efforts to fight disinformation.” Pure propaganda!

Here’s a closeup of the New York Times article.

Image

We should be used to this type of media propaganda by now, but somehow, it still manages to stun. The once respected Old Gray Lady has tossed away every shred of her dignity and credibility.

SUPPORT REVOLVER — DONATE — SUBSCRIBE — NEWSFEED — GAB — GETTR — TRUTH SOCIAL — TWITTER