WHAT WOULD OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES SAY?

 

 https://sonar21.com/what-would-oliver-wendell-holmes-say/

 Here’s an excerpt=

  But there’s nothing to suggest that people are waking up or actually see that.  Judge Doughty’s opinion granting the preliminary injunction said: “the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”  The 155 page opinion details what various Executive Branch agencies and high level government officials from the White House on down were doing not only to suppress Free Speech, but to punish anyone who had the temerity to speak out against Gummint policy and official narratives.

How many people even bothered to read even a few pages of the decision, much less the whole thing?   https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/missouri-v-biden-ruling.pdf    Not too many.  The sad truth is that most people are not really very interested in the subject, the relative few who are interested are too lazy to make much of an effort to inform themselves, and even fewer still (if any) are willing to “pledge their lives, their fortunes or their sacred honor” to do anything about it. 

That’s why what is happening is happening!  “The most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history”?  Who cares?  The general reaction to it – or to the Fifth Circuit’s decision Friday is pretty much a big yawn.

On Monday, July 10^th Judge Doughty denied the Government’s request for stay in which he concluded:  

                                    III.    CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs  are  likely  to  prove  that  all  of  the enjoined Defendants (Biden et al.)  coerced,  significantly encouraged, and/or jointly participated social-media companies to suppress social-media posts by American  citizens  that expressed opinions that  were anti-COVID-19  vaccines,  anti-COVID-19 lockdowns, posts  that  delegitimized or questioned  the results of  the  2020  election, and other content not subject to any exception to the First Amendment. These items are protected free speech and were seemingly censored because of the viewpoints they expressed. Viewpoint discrimination is subject to strict scrutiny.

Although this Preliminary Injunction involves numerous agencies, it is not as broad as it appears. It only prohibits something the Defendants have no legal right to do—contacting social-media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner, the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms. It also contains numerous exceptions.

Therefore, for the reasons set forth herein, the Defendants’ Motion to Stay [Doc. No. 297] is DENIED.

            Source: 08917387154.pdf (thegatewaypundit.com)

But this injunction has now been suspended by a three Judge panel of the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals that reversed Judge Doughty’s denial of the stay pending appeal in a tersely worded one-page “Unpublished Order” without explanation.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/appeals-court-pauses-ban-biden-admins-censorship-efforts-social-media-companies

 

Go ahead, Google. Do your worst.