(TheLastPatriotNews.com) – In what has become a long-overdue official confirmation of what American patriots and conservatives have long believed, Meta and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has formally admitted that he was involved in a censorship collusion with the Biden-Harris administration.
Zuckerberg’s acknowledgment that the Biden-Harris administration pressured Facebook to censor speech may bolster First Amendment claims against the federal government, according to insights from legal scholars and attorneys involved in ongoing litigation, The Daily Caller notes in a report.
In a new correspondence to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, Zuckerberg expressed regret over his company’s previous acquiescence to governmental demands to suppress speech that it would have otherwise allowed.
This revelation is pivotal, shedding light on the pressing issue of the role that digital platforms play in ongoing legal battles with the Biden administration, potentially reinforcing First Amendment challenges.
“Mark Zuckerberg regrets his censorship because our lawsuit exposed it,” stated Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey to The Caller.
“He was caught red-handed. We are moving forward undeterred in Missouri v. Biden to wipe out the censorship regime once and for all,” he added.
In a decision this past June, the Supreme Court determined that the plaintiffs in the case Murthy v. Missouri, which included the states of Missouri and Louisiana and individuals who experienced censorship, lacked the standing necessary to secure an injunction that would prevent the Biden administration from either coercing or “significantly encouraging” platforms to censor speech.
New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) litigation counsel Jenin Younes stated that Mark Zuckerberg’s recent acknowledgment does not impact the Supreme Court’s evaluation of standing for the plaintiffs in the Murthy case, though it “certainly strengthens the First Amendment claim.”
“The Court would likely say this doesn’t establish that any of the specific plaintiffs were censored because of the government, even though Zuckerberg does acknowledge that the government improperly exerted influence over Meta’s content moderation decisions,” Younes informed.
“While Zuckerberg tries to hedge by saying ultimately the platform made its own choices, it’s clear those choices were driven by the government’s pressure campaign, as he admits that in hindsight Meta would have done things differently,” he added.
Younes also remarked that Zuckerberg is “talking out of both sides of his mouth.”
“Zuckerberg has a motivation to portray the company’s censorship decisions as its own: theoretically, if courts find Meta was acting as an arm of the government, the company could be liable as a state actor for monetary damages based on harm censored individuals suffered,” she elaborated.
District Court Judge Terry Doughty recently directed the parties in the Missouri lawsuit to submit briefs outlining their views on whether additional evidence gathering would be beneficial for assessing whether the litigation should continue.
Meanwhile, Manhattan Institute Director of Constitutional Studies Ilya Shapiro remarked that Zuckerberg’s statement “makes the government look really, really bad.”
“This is conclusive proof that it wasn’t just the tech platforms acting because they themselves agreed with certain political points. It was the government actively applying pressure,” he said.
Copyright 2024, TheLastPatriotNews.com
