BigLaw

LIT’s Last Supper Series: Examining Judge Donny Willett’s Stance on Free Speech in Biden v. Missouri

Judge Don Willett wants LIT’s free speech rights suppressed and has applied unrelenting pressure on US Gov. to execute his personal desire.

LIT COMMENTARY

LIT:  Judge Donny Willett sat on this panel. He wants LIT’s free speech rights suppressed and has applied “unrelenting pressure” on the government and US Marshals to execute his personal desire to violate the First Amendment as applied to press and media organizations, in this case Laws In Texas. A contradictory opinion, indeed.

“But, the Supreme Court has rarely been faced with a coordinated campaign of this magnitude orchestrated by federal officials that jeopardized a fundamental aspect of American life. Therefore, the district court was correct in its assessment—“unrelenting pressure” from certain government officials likely “had the intended result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by American citizens.”” 

FIRE statement on Fifth Circuit’s decision in Missouri v. Biden

SEP 9, 2023 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: SEP 11, 2023

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Missouri v. Biden is an important victory for freedom of expression. In a careful but clear ruling, the three-judge panel strongly reaffirmed the primacy of the First Amendment and the fundamental bar it imposes on government officials seeking to limit what we can say.

By coercing social media platforms “via urgent, uncompromising demands” into censoring users who voiced dissenting or disfavored views, officials from the White House, the Surgeon General’s office, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation likely violated the First Amendment.

And by “commandeering their decision-making processes,” these same officials significantly encouraged social media platforms to censor speech the government didn’t like. That poses First Amendment problems, too. As the court wrote: “Social-media platforms’ content-moderation decisions must be theirs and theirs alone.”

That’s exactly right.

The Fifth Circuit’s ruling takes the necessary care to distinguish impermissible coercion from simple persuasion. The decision’s well-grounded reasoning carefully draws the right line.

Regardless of one’s views on the subjects targeted by the government’s unlawful censorship campaign, this decision should be welcomed by all Americans. (sayeth FIRE)

Just as importantly, the Fifth Circuit addresses the problems FIRE identified with the district court’s sweeping injunction. By sharply narrowing the injunction to remove its restrictions on lawful communications between platforms and government actors, the Fifth Circuit was again cognizant of the First Amendment’s boundaries.

Regardless of one’s views on the subjects targeted by the government’s unlawful censorship campaign, this decision should be welcomed by all Americans. The principles it upholds will protect freedom of speech, regardless of whether coercive pressure comes from the left or the right.

FIRE applauds this important ruling. But we again note that the federal government’s overreach under both the Trump and Biden administrations underscores the need for legislation requiring governmental disclosure of its communications with social media companies.

Judge Willett taking his own family security seriously on Social Media

This was tweeted on May 26. The removal request on June 2. That’s only a week later.

How Much Does Robert J Kruckemeyer Calculate He’s Lost in Income to LIT As an AEG LLC Employee?

A Deep Dive into the Creative Accounting Behind Lawyer Kruckemeyer’s Calculations of Lost Income—Thanks to LIT’s Honest, Hard-Hitting Exposés

Joe Izen: Deutsche Bank Lawyer Michael Hord’s Time-Barred Attempts At Foreclosure Must Fail

Deutsche Bank has neither an automatic stay or injunction which prevented Deutsche Bank from timely filing its claims and causes of action.

Judge Rosenthal: Pro Se Sanctioned Texas Attorney’s Decade-Long Clouded Title Foreclosure Remanded

When a court of competent jurisdiction assumes jurisdiction over an action in rem, no other court may exercise concurrent jurisdiction.

LIT’s Last Supper Series: Examining Judge Donny Willett’s Stance on Free Speech in Biden v. Missouri
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top