Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Censorship Industrial Complex

Assistant AG tells House committee she’s ‘not familiar’ with major social media censorship lawsuit

Published

2 years ago

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Ashley Sadler

“If the allegations made by the plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack on free speech in United States history”

The assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division stunned a Republican lawmaker in a Tuesday hearing when she said she hadn’t heard of a major First Amendment lawsuit currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. The case alleges that members of the Biden administration colluded with social media companies to suppress content deemed to be “misinformation,” including COVID-19-related content and information related to Hunter Biden.

In a Tuesday hearing before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government, Assistant AG Kristen Clarke said she was “not familiar” with the ongoing litigation in the first amendment lawsuit Missouri v. Biden, a major case that LifeSiteNews has extensively covered.

Clarke made the remarks after Republican U.S. Rep. Dan Bishop of North Carolina cited a July 4 opinion by Judge Terry Doughty stating that the plaintiffs “are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claim.” 

“If the allegations made by the plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack on free speech in United States history,’” Doughty said in his opinion, which Rep. Bishop referenced in the Tuesday hearing. The U.S. Supreme Court has subsequently agreed to take up the case, now dubbed Murthy v. Missouri.

READ: Supreme Court will decide whether Biden admin illegally pushed Big Tech to censor conservatives

Noting that the litigation has been strictly civil to date, Bishop asked Clarke whether “any criminal investigation or criminal prosecution of the persons responsible for that activity” is “underway in the [DOJ] civil rights division?”

“Congressman, I’m not familiar with this litigation, but [I’m] happy to bring your question back,” Clarke said.

Bishop asked Clarke to confirm whether she was saying she was “not aware of the Missouri v. Biden litigation that is currently being taken up by the United States Supreme Court.”

“Is that correct?” Bishop said.

As LifeSiteNews has reported, the First Amendment lawsuit argues that numerous Biden administration officials had “colluded with and/or coerced social-media platforms to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content.”

“In their attempts to suppress alleged disinformation, the Federal Government, and particularly the Defendants named here, are alleged to have blatantly ignored the First Amendment’s right to free speech,” the lawsuit claims.

The plaintiffs in the case are two states, Missouri and Louisiana, along with three doctors who have publicly spoken out against the prevailing COVID-19 narrative: Aaron Kheriaty, Dr. Martin Kulldorff, and Dr. Jayanta “Jay” Bhattacharya. Co-Director of Health Freedom Louisiana Jill Hines and Jim Hoft, owner of the news site The Gateway Pundit, are also plaintiffs in the case.

RELATED: This Supreme Court case could strike a blow against the Deep State and Big Tech

In September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit allowed the suit to proceed against the Surgeon General as well as members of the Executive Office of the President of the United States, the CDC, and the FBI.

According to the filing, the plaintiffs allege that government officials employed “public pressure campaigns, private meetings, and other forms of direct communication” against so-called “disinformation,” “misinformation,” and “malinformation,” and “colluded with and/or coerced social-media platforms to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social-media platforms.”

Per the Fifth Circuit, the plaintiffs “had posts and stories removed or downgraded by” social media companies that government officials had “urged … to remove disfavored content and accounts from their sites.”

The federal court noted that the plaintiffs said the content that was “removed or downgraded” had “touched on a host of divisive topics like the COVID-19 lab-leak theory, pandemic lockdowns, vaccine side effects, election fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story.”

“The Plaintiffs maintain that although the platforms stifled their speech, the government officials were the ones pulling the strings,” the ruling stated.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed in late October to take up the case, though it has allowed the Biden administration to continue its communications with social media companies in the meantime.

Before Post

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
International / 5 hours ago

Beijing’s blueprint for breaking Canada-U.S. unity

Indigenous / 5 hours ago

Indigenous activist wins landmark court ruling for financial transparency

Alberta / 6 hours ago

Red Deer’s Jason Stephan calls for citizen-led referendum on late-term abortion ban in Alberta

Censorship Industrial Complex

UK Government “Resist” Program Monitors Citizens’ Online Posts

Published on November 24, 2025

By

logo
Let’s begin with a simple question. What do you get when you cross a bloated PR department with a clipboard-wielding surveillance unit?
The answer, apparently, is the British Government Communications Service (GCS). Once a benign squad of slogan-crafting, policy-promoting clipboard enthusiasts, they’ve now evolved (or perhaps mutated) into what can only be described as a cross between MI5 and a neighborhood Reddit moderator with delusions of grandeur.
Yes, your friendly local bureaucrat is now scrolling through Facebook groups, lurking in comment sections, and watching your aunt’s status update about the “new hotel down the road filling up with strangers” like it’s a scene from Homeland. All in the name of “societal cohesion,” of course.
Once upon a time, the GCS churned out posters with perky slogans like Stay Alert or Get Boosted Now, like a government-powered BuzzFeed.
But now, under the updated “Resist” framework (yes, it’s actually called that), the GCS has been reprogrammed to patrol the internet for what they’re calling “high-risk narratives.”
Not terrorism. Not hacking. No, according to The Telegraph, the new public enemy is your neighbor questioning things like whether the council’s sudden housing development has anything to do with the 200 migrants housed in the local hotel.
It’s all in the manual: if your neighbor posts that “certain communities are getting priority housing while local families wait years,” this, apparently, is a red flag. An ideological IED. The sort of thing that could “deepen community divisions” and “create new tensions.”
This isn’t surveillance, we’re told. It’s “risk assessment.” Just a casual read-through of what that lady from your yoga class posted about a planning application. The framework warns of “local parental associations” and “concerned citizens” forming forums.
And why the sudden urgency? The new guidance came hot on the heels of a real incident, protests outside hotels housing asylum seekers, following the sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl by Hadush Kebatu, an Ethiopian migrant.
Now, instead of looking at how that tragedy happened or what policies allowed it, the government’s solution is to scan the reaction to it.
What we are witnessing is the rhetorical equivalent of chucking all dissent into a bin labelled “disinformation” and slamming the lid shut.
The original Resist framework was cooked up in 2019 as a European-funded toolkit to fight actual lies. Now, it equates perfectly rational community concerns about planning, safety, and who gets housed where with Russian bots and deepfakes. If you squint hard enough, everyone starts to look like a threat.
Local councils have even been drafted into the charade. New guidance urges them to follow online chatter about asylum seekers in hotels or the sudden closure of local businesses.
One case study even panics over a town hall meeting where residents clapped. That’s right. Four hundred people clapped in support of someone they hadn’t properly Googled first. This, we’re told, is dangerous.
So now councils are setting up “cohesion forums” and “prebunking” schemes to manage public anger. Prebunking. Like bunking, but done in advance, before you’ve even heard the thing you’re not meant to believe.
It’s the equivalent of a teacher telling you not to laugh before the joke’s even landed.
Naturally, this is all being wrapped in the cosy language of protecting democracy. A government spokesman insisted, with a straight face: “We are committed to protecting people online while upholding freedom of expression.”
Because let’s be real, this isn’t about illegal content or safeguarding children. It’s about managing perception. When you start labeling ordinary gripes and suspicions as “narratives” that need “countering,” what you’re really saying is: we don’t trust the public to think for themselves.
Continue Reading

Alberta

Alberta bill would protect freedom of expression for doctors, nurses, other professionals

Published on November 22, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

‘Peterson’s law,’ named for Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, was introduced by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.

Alberta’s Conservative government introduced a new law that will set “clear expectations” for professional regulatory bodies to respect freedom of speech on social media and online for doctors, nurses, engineers, and other professionals.

The new law, named “Peterson’s law” after Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, who was canceled by his regulatory body, was introduced Thursday by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.

“Professionals should never fear losing their license or career because of a social media post, an interview, or a personal opinion expressed on their own time,” Smith said in a press release sent to media and LifeSiteNews.

“Alberta’s government is restoring fairness and neutrality so regulators focus on competence and ethics, not policing beliefs. Every Albertan has the right to speak freely without ideological enforcement or intimidation, and this legislation makes that protection real.”

The law, known as Bill 13, the Regulated Professions Neutrality Act, will “set clear expectations for professional regulatory bodies to ensure professionals’ right to free expression is protected.”

According to the government, the new law will “Limit professional regulatory bodies from disciplining professionals for expressive off-duty conduct, except in specific circumstances such as threats of physical violence or a criminal conviction.”

It will also restrict mandatory training “unrelated to competence or ethics, such as diversity, equity, and inclusion training.”

Bill 13, once it becomes law, which is all but guaranteed as Smith’s United Conservative Party (UCP) holds a majority, will also “create principles of neutrality that prohibit professional regulatory bodies from assigning value, blame or different treatment to individuals based on personally held views or political beliefs.”

As reported by LifeSiteNews, Peterson has been embattled with the College of Psychologists of Ontario (CPO) after it  mandated he undergo social media “training” to keep his license following posts he made on X, formerly Twitter, criticizing Trudeau and LGBT activists.

Early this year, LifeSiteNews reported that the CPO had selected Peterson’s “re-education coach” for having publicly opposed the LGBT agenda.

The Alberta government directly referenced Peterson’s (who is from Alberta originally) plight with the CPO, noting “the disciplinary proceedings against Dr. Jordan Peterson by the College of Psychologists of Ontario, demonstrate how regulatory bodies can extend their reach into personal expression rather than professional competence.”

“Similar cases involving nurses, engineers and other professionals revealed a growing pattern: individuals facing investigations, penalties or compulsory ideological training for off-duty expressive conduct. These incidents became a catalyst, confirming the need for clear legislative boundaries that protect free expression while preserving professional standards.”

Alberta Minister of Justice and Attorney General Mickey Amery said regarding Bill 13 that the new law makes that protection of professionals “real and holds professional regulatory bodies to a clear standard.”

Last year, Peterson formally announced his departure from Canada in favor of moving to the United States, saying his birth nation has become a “totalitarian hell hole.” 

Continue Reading

Trending

X