A 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the administrative stay on Judge Doughty’s Injunction.
On July 14th, The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the defendants an administrative stay over Judge Doughty’s Injunction, which prevented communications between the defendants and Tech platforms from stifling free speech. The court, “called for arguments in the case to be scheduled on an expedited basis.” The stay removed the restrictions, thus allowing the defendants to resume communications to censor American citizens. However, the appeal is being sent to an oral argument merits panel for a determination.
If the appeal is granted, it would be a significant blow to the seemingly iron-clad case the plaintiffs brought forward. If the appeal is denied, the injunction will remain in place. The argument the defendants made was “the ruling by Doughty is too vague and broad,” thus confusing the defendants, “raising questions about what officials can say in conversations with social media companies.” In a 20 page response, plaintiffs dismissed the assertions by administration lawyers’ assertions. These are the judge’s words so you can decide whether his ruling also has you, the average American citizen, confused.
“—encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”
Judge Doughty also clarified the definition of protected free speech,” as discussed in the previous update. That clarification stated, “‘Protected free speech’ means speech which is protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution in accordance with the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court.”
“—Defendants argue that the injunction should be stayed because it might interfere with the Government’s ability to continue working with social-media companies to censor Americans’ core political speech on the basis of viewpoint. In other words, the Government seeks a stay of the injunction so that it can continue violating the First Amendment.”
If you are seeking additional coverage of the Missouri v Biden case for additional context, you can find multiple reports covering prior rulings, memorandums, and arguments at Intellectual Dissatisfaction or here at AFNN.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. You can find more of Jeremy’s work at his Substack Publication, Intellectual Dissatisfaction, where you can subscribe to receive publication updates right to your email or the Substack app. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA