5th Circuit Rules Biden Violated First Amendment

TL;DR: The Biden Administration’s collusion with Big Tech to suppress dissenting voices is described as a historic violation of the First Amendment. Key takeaways:

Censorship Infrastructure: Federal agencies like the FBI, CDC, NIH, and DHS pressured platforms to silence critiques, label dissent as misinformation, and control narratives on issues like COVID-19, election integrity, and immigration.
Hunter Biden Laptop Scandal: The FBI flagged the story as potential disinformation, influencing platforms to suppress it, impacting voter awareness before the 2020 election.
COVID-19 Debate Suppression: The CDC and NIH censored discussions on vaccine side effects, mask efficacy, and the lab-leak theory, despite emerging evidence supporting these claims.
Government Influence: Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and DHS’s Disinformation Governance Board institutionalized censorship through partnerships with tech companies.
Media Complicity: Legacy media ignored or downplayed censorship revelations, losing public trust and driving audiences to independent platforms.
Political Fallout: The Biden Administration’s overreach alienated voters, revealed authoritarian tendencies, and contributed to Kamala Harris’s election loss.

This article frames the administration’s actions as a threat to democracy, calling for accountability and vigilance to protect free speech in an era of increasing government influence over public discourse.

Let’s cut to the chase. The Biden Administration engaged in one of the most egregious violations of the First Amendment in modern history. By colluding with private tech platforms like Facebook and Twitter, federal agencies such as the FBI, CDC, and NIH suppressed dissenting voices and shut down narratives that challenged their agenda a direct assault on constitutional rights.

Even worse, left-leaning media largely ignored or dismissed this story, branding it as misinformation or conspiracy. As a result, many liberals remain unaware of the administration’s overreach or believe it to be exaggerated. This failure of the media allowed the government to weaponize private companies against free speech with minimal public scrutiny.

The First Amendment explicitly forbids government suppression of speech. Yet, by outsourcing censorship to private entities, the Biden Administration circumvented this protection, undermining democracy itself. Let’s break down the specifics of this violation and why so many Americans remain in the dark about this attack on their freedoms.

The FBI: Guardians of Security or Agents of Suppression?

The FBI, historically tasked with safeguarding the republic, has been revealed to play a significant role in suppressing dissenting voices and shaping narratives under the guise of security. Here’s how:

The Hunter Biden Laptop Scandal

Election Interference by Proxy

In 2020, the New York Post published a story about Hunter Biden’s laptop, which contained information with direct implications for then-candidate Joe Biden. It was a story of public interest, to put it mildly.
What did the FBI do? They conducted preemptive briefings with social media companies, warning them of a potential Russian disinformation campaign just weeks before the election. The laptop story was suppressed, and the platforms justified it under the pretext of avoiding foreign interference. (Source)
This wasn’t a neutral advisory. The Twitter Files show explicit communication between the FBI and social media platforms urging them to be cautious about the story, knowing full well that it wasn’t disinformation. This directly impacted public knowledge before an election a clear example of narrative manipulation. (Source)

Lists of Flagged Accounts

Beyond the laptop, the FBI regularly sent platforms lists of accounts they deemed problematic. Many of these were ordinary citizens engaging in political discourse. The FBI’s justification? National security. The result? Suppression of speech that criticized the Biden Administration or questioned its policies. (Source)

Post-January 6th

Targeting Critics Under the Guise of Extremism

After the Capitol riot, the FBI intensified its collaboration with social media companies, flagging content related not only to violent threats but also to criticisms of its own handling of the situation. (Source)
For example, individuals questioning the FBI’s failures to prevent the riot or discussing election security faced account suspensions and content removal. A chilling effect was created, not just on potential threats but on political dissent. (Source)

The CDC: When Science Becomes Dogma

The CDC, ostensibly an apolitical health body, became a central player in suppressing speech during the COVID-19 pandemic. The justification? Misinformation. But here’s the truth: they targeted not just falsehoods but also legitimate debates and emerging scientific perspectives.

Suppression of Vaccine Concerns

Silencing Side Effect Discussions

Internal emails reveal CDC officials directly flagged posts on platforms like Facebook and Twitter. These posts discussed topics like myocarditis risks in young men after receiving mRNA vaccines.
Here’s the kicker: the CDC eventually acknowledged the risks these posts highlighted. So, at the time of suppression, these weren’t false claims they were inconvenient truths. (Source)

The Booster Shot Debate

When some scientists expressed skepticism about the need for widespread boosters, their content was flagged or removed. The justification was that such content could undermine confidence. In reality, these were valid scientific debates. (Source)

Mask Efficacy

Censoring Data-Based Criticism

Early in the pandemic, debates over mask efficacy were widespread. Data from studies questioning the effectiveness of cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 spread was labeled as misinformation. (Source)
Platforms, from the Biden’s Administration’s Cullusion, suppressed posts citing peer-reviewed studies, effectively allowing only one narrative to dominate public discourse: that all masks, in all contexts, were equally effective. (Source)

The NIH and COVID Origins: Protecting Science or Hiding the Truth?

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) also played a role in suppressing free inquiry, particularly regarding the origins of COVID-19.

Lab-Leak Theory: From Conspiracy to Plausibility

Early in the pandemic, the NIH publicly aligned itself with the narrative that COVID-19 had a natural origin. Posts and accounts discussing the possibility of a lab-leak were labeled as conspiracy theories and often removed. (Source)
However, emails from Dr. Anthony Fauci revealed internal discussions among scientists who admitted the lab-leak theory was plausible. Despite this, the NIH worked to silence online discussions of this possibility. (Source)

Funding Controversies: Gain-of-Function Research Suppression

Discussions questioning U.S. funding of gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were flagged as misinformation. Even when these discussions were based on official grant documentation, they were suppressed. This is nothing short of obfuscation of government accountability. (Source)

The Surgeon General’s Office: A Campaign of Pressure

In July 2021, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued an advisory that declared health misinformation an urgent public health threat. This advisory was not just a suggestion it was a clear pressure campaign directed at private platforms.

Coercion Disguised as Recommendations

Following this advisory, the Surgeon General’s office began working directly with platforms to combat misinformation trends. They did more than advise they identified specific accounts and influencers to target, effectively outsourcing censorship to private entities. (Source)
Influencers who questioned public health mandates or raised concerns about rushed vaccine approvals saw their reach reduced or their accounts suspended.

Legitimizing Censorship Policies

Platforms like Facebook updated their community guidelines to align with these directives, effectively institutionalizing government-approved censorship. This coordination turned private companies into extensions of state control. (Source)

Homeland Security and the Disinformation Governance Board

The creation of the Disinformation Governance Board (DGB) by the Department of Homeland Security was perhaps the most blatant attempt to centralize control over public discourse.

Election Narratives

Critiques of Voting Systems Suppressed:

Legitimate concerns, like vulnerabilities highlighted in the Halderman Report on Dominion Voting Systems, were flagged as misinformation, undermining open discourse. (Source)

Election Laws and Debate Suppression:

Georgia’s Election Integrity Act of 2021 faced polarized reactions. Valid critiques, such as concerns from the Brennan Center for Justice about potential impacts on marginalized communities, were often stifled. (Source)

Immigration Policy – Suppression of Criticism:

Posts discussing illegal immigration trends or critiquing immigration policies were flagged, limiting public debate on key issues like border security and enforcement.
Example: Discussions about rising border crossings or policy effects on asylum applications often faced censorship.

A Dangerous Precedent

We must ask hard questions: Who decides what counts as misinformation? Who holds the powerful accountable? When debate is silenced, freedom itself is at risk. A society that tolerates such overreach under the guise of safety is heading toward quiet authoritarianism.

Kamala Harris’s recent election loss wasn’t just political it was a reckoning for the Democratic Party and its media allies. The Biden Administration, while accusing Trump of authoritarianism, engaged in the same authoritarian tactics, weaponizing the DOJ to investigate and target Trump after he announced his candidacy. This use of state power against a political opponent mirrors the practices of regimes, not democracies.

But it didn’t stop there. The Biden Administration also suppressed dissent within its own ranks, silencing left-leaning critics who questioned the narrative. This overreach alienated voters across the spectrum, pushing many disillusioned liberals to abandon the Democrats and even support the right. While Democrats painted Trump as the ultimate threat to democracy, their actions revealed a dangerous hypocrisy that couldn’t be hidden forever.

The Democratic Party’s foundation is cracking under the weight of its overreach. Years of media bias shielding the left while attacking dissent have eroded public trust, driving audiences away from mainstream outlets to record-low ratings. Legacy media, once dominant, is collapsing cutting salaries, laying off staff, and grappling with the fallout of alienating millions. Meanwhile, alternative voices on platforms like YouTube are filling the void, delivering unfiltered analysis to audiences far larger than cable news.

This isn’t just a media crisis; it’s the unraveling of a system built on control and suppression. The weaponization of federal agencies and the media’s complicity in amplifying propaganda have exposed the Democratic Party’s authoritarian streak. But in an era of decentralized information, these tactics are failing. Americans are rejecting the narrative, seeking truth elsewhere, and the institutions that thrived on manipulation are now crumbling under their own contradictions.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Post Views: 1,042

Posted By

Jourdan Rombough

I’m Jourdan, and Vussio is one of my many websites. This site is a place for put together topics i find interesting, along with my thoughts and perspective on random topics outside of my expertise of SEO.