doughty terry hon

---

SAUER BAILEY TRUMP ADMIN CORRUPT

1ST LIBERTY XIAN? AM 1ST MILLER?

EPOCH

4 25

MOM? CIT? DEPORT KIDS W CANCER, TRYING TO GET HER ON PHONE OUT OF COUNTRY?

5th reversed by acb tho only on standing?

an 6 24

In a majority decision, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett slapped down the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in a decision Wednesday.

Red states and conservatives sued President Joe Biden's administration for coordinating with social media companies to help tamp down misinformation about the pandemic in 2021.

According to the Supreme Court majority in the *Murthy v. Missouri* case, the parties didn't have standing to sue.

It reverses the conservative Fifth Circuit, which said communications between governmental officials and social media platforms meant that the government officials were regulating content-moderation decisions for the platform.

"The Fifth Circuit was wrong to do so," wrote Barrett.

According to SCOTUS Blog reporter Amy Howe, "The challengers contend that the restrictions that they experienced in the past on social media platforms could be attributed to the defendants and that the platforms will continue to censor their speech."

The Supreme Court rejected the idea, writing that the "platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment. To be sure, the record reflects that the Government defendants played a role in at least some of the platforms' moderation choices. But the Fifth Circuit, by attributing every platform decision at least in part to the defendants, glossed over complexities in the evidence."

---

The Brilliant Legal Mind of John Sauer - Ethics & Public Policy Center

The Brilliant Legal Mind of John Sauer NO APPARENT IRONY

Published August 24, 2023

The Epoch Times

By Aaron Kheriaty

*Commentary

On July 20, our attorney John Sauer—a brilliant legal mind and a force of nature in the courtroom—testified before a Congressional hearing of the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of Government. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Emma-Jo Morris, the journalist who originally broke the Hunter Biden laptop story, which was subsequently censored under pressure from the FBI, also testified. In a “you can’t make this stuff up moment,” one committee member began this hearing—a hearing on the topic of government censorship—by calling for a vote to censor the hearing itself, shielding it from public view and removing it from the public record.

You can watch the entire hearing here (Sauer’s testimony begins at minute 48). For those who prefer to read, I’ve included below the text of John Sauer’s five-minute oral testimony. For those who want a deeper dive, scroll down to his more detailed written testimony, which summarizes our case’s findings related to unconstitutional government censorship

Oral Testimony of D. John Sauer

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee:

On July 4, 2023—Independence Day—Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Louisiana entered an historic injunction against White House and other federal officials to prevent them from “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.” Ex. 2, at 4.

Judge Doughty’s opinion contains 82 pages of detailed factual findings, supported by 577 citations of the record evidence, drawn from roughly 20,000 pages of the federal Government’s own emails and communications with social-media platforms, and the sworn testimony of senior federal officials in six full-length depositions. Ex. 1, at 4–86.

The Department of Justice filed an “emergency” stay motion in the U.S. Court of Appeals to block this injunction. Notably, in its stay motion, the Government hardly disputed a single factual findingfrom Judge Doughty’s opinion. These facts—supported by overwhelming evidence drawn from federal officials’ own mouths—are irrefutable.

The Court of Appeals has not granted this stay motion, but it has entered a “temporary administrative stay” and granted expedited briefing and oral argument on August 10. Contrary to some recent suggestions, a temporary administrative stay in such cases is “routine practice” in the Fifth Circuit and does not reflect a prejudgment of the merits. In re Abbott, 800 F. App’x 296, 298 (5th Cir. 2020).

The Louisianaopinion demonstrates that federal officials have covertly injected themselves into the content-moderation decisions of major social-media platforms, through a years-long campaign of threats, “unrelenting pressure,” collusion, and deceit. This campaign targets specific speakers and viewpoints, and it also affects platforms’ content-moderation policies.

Today, I offer seven observations drawn from the Louisianaopinion:

First,the Louisianacourt found, based on overwhelming evidence, that federal officials causethe censorship of disfavored viewpoints. The Government frequently claims that social-media platforms, acting on their own, would censor all the targeted speech anyway. This is demonstrably false. Again and again, the Louisianacourt found the platforms would not suppressthe speech that federal officials target absent their intervention; federal officials causethe additional censorship. The deplatforming of Alex Berenson, the throttling of Tucker Carlson’s content, the silencing of the so-called “Disinformation Dozen,” the de-boosting of so-called “borderline” content on Facebook, the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story, and much more—all were suppressed because offederal officials’ efforts.

Second,the scope and reach of federal censorship is staggering. As Louisianafound, it affects “millions” of social-media speakers and posts across America. It affects virtually any American who reads, listens, engages, or posts on social media about hotly disputed social and political questions.

Third,federal censorship is ongoing and shows no signs of stopping. The Louisianaopinion cites undisputed evidence demonstrating that federal officials’ censorship efforts are in full swing, and they are expanding to new frontiers. Left unchecked, federal censorship will reach virtually any disputed social and political question over which federal officials want to impose their power.

Fourth,the Louisianaopinion shows that federal officials are most eager to silence truthfulspeech, and to muzzle the most influential critics of the Administration and its policies. Tucker Carlson, Alex Berenson, and others were censored because they were the most effective speakers opposed to the Administration and its policies. Federal officials try to justify censorship as protecting innocent Americans from supposed “misinformation” and “disinformation.” This defense is false. Censorship is not about truth. It is about power—preserving and expanding the power of the censors and the political narratives they favor.

Fifth,federal officials are deeply intertwined with the “Censorship-Industrial Complex.” The Louisianacourt made detailed findings about the close connections and cooperation between federal national-security officials and the mass-surveillance and mass-censorship enterprise calling itself the “Election Integrity Partnership” and the “Virality Project.” Not just CISA officials, but also White House, State Department, and Surgeon General officials have deep ties to this enterprise. As Louisianafound, “CISA and the EIP were completely intertwined.”

Sixth,federal officials not only dictate the outcomes of specific content-moderation decisions. They also directly induce changes to content-moderation policiesat major social-media platforms to ban disfavored viewpoints in advance. As the Louisianacourt held, federal officials used “the power of the government to pressure social-media platforms to change their policiesand to suppress free speech.”

Seventh,the federal Censorship Enterprise has succeeded in transforming online discourse throughout America by rendering entire viewpoints virtually unspeakable on social media—the “modern public square.” It also directly interferes with another cherished First Amendment freedom—the right of citizens to organize to petition the government for redress of grievances. This ongoing distortion of the most fundamental American freedom, the right to free speech, is intolerable under the First Amendment.

Written Testimony of D. John Sauer

My name is D. John Sauer. I serve as a Special Assistant Attorney General for the State of Louisiana, and I serve as litigation counsel in the case Louisiana, et al. v. Biden, et al., No. 3:22- cv-01213-TAD (W.D. La.) (“Louisiana”). I testified before this panel on March 30, 2023, regarding the status of discovery in that case. My previous testimony is attached as Exhibit 3. I speak here today in my individual capacity, and not on behalf of any of my clients.

On July 4, 2023—Independence Day—Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana entered a historic injunction in Louisiana v. Biden. See LouisianaDocs. 293, 294 (attached as Exhibits 1 and 2). The injunction prevents federal officials from the White House and several federal agencies from “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.” Ex. 2, at 4.

The injunction is based on 82 pages of detailed factual findings supported by 577 citations of evidence in the record, which includes over 18,000 pages of federal officials’ own documents and communications with social-media platforms, and six full-length depositions of senior federal officials with firsthand knowledge of federal censorship practices. In short, the judgment is based on overwhelming evidence drawn from federal officials’ own mouths.

...

Conclusion: Two Visions of Freedom

This struggle over federal censorship reflects two competing visions of freedom in America. First, as the Louisianacourt emphasizes, CISA Director Jen Easterly aptly summarizes the federal officials’ view: “She … stated, ‘We live in a world where people talk about alternative facts, post-truth, which I think is really, really dangerous if people get to pick their own facts.’” Ex. 1, at 77. She also stated, “[W]e’re in the business of protecting critical infrastructure, and the most critical is our ‘cognitive infrastructure.’” Id.

Thus, Easterly’s view—reflected in federal censorship activity—is that the American “people” cannot be trusted “to pick their own facts,” and that the governmentshould pick our facts for us. Id.She believes that the federal government—armed with the weapons, authority, and the domestic surveillance capacity of the national-security state—should police our “cognitive infrastructure.” Id.As the Louisianacourt found, “cognitive infrastructure” means that “the CISA Defendants believe they had a mandate to control the process of acquiring knowledge.” Id.at 110.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s watershed First Amendment opinions express a radically different view of freedom. “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.” W. Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). “Our constitutional tradition stands against the idea that we need Oceania’s Ministry of Truth.” United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709, 723 (2012) (plurality op.).

The Louisianacase is one part of a titanic struggle between these two visions of freedom. The former view—the view reflected in the actions of federal censorship agents like Jennifer Psaki, Rob Flaherty, Andy Slavitt, Dr. Vivek Murthy, Carol Crawford, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Jen Easterly, Matthew Masterson, Brian Scully, Alex Stamos, Rene DiResta, Kate Starbird, Elvis Chan, Laura Dehmlow, and a host of other federal censors—is terrifying and tyrannical, and its power is expanding rapidly. But the latter view is the vision enshrined in the plain text of our Constitution and deeply engrained in our traditions of liberty. I am profoundly hopeful that this latter vision of freedom will prevail.

Aaron Kheriaty, MD, is a Fellow & Director of the Bioethics, Technology and Human Flourishing Program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He is a physician specializing in psychiatry and author of three books, including most recently, The New Abnormal: The Rise of the Biomedical Security State (2022).*}:

---

https://www.mediamatters.org/qanon-conspiracy-theory/key-qanon-influencer-hosts-missouri-ag-promote-case-has-limited-governments

no lnx audio vid?

Key QAnon influencer hosts Missouri AG to promote case that has limited government's ability to discuss misinformation with tech platforms

WRITTEN BY ALEX KAPLAN

PUBLISHED 08/04/23

On August 1 and 2, QAnon influencer Tracy “Beanz” Diaz, who was a key figure behind the conspiracy theory’s spread on social media, hosted Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and allowed him to promote the case Missouri v. Biden, which has resulted in a judge barring President Joe Biden’s administration from interacting with social media platforms regarding possible misinformation.

Diaz was reportedly one of the three key figures who popularized QAnon online and organized a 2018 QAnon rally in Washington, D.C.

On July 4, a federal judge issued an injunction in Missouri v. Biden, barring the federal government from contacting platforms and asking to remove misinformation. The judge in the case, which focuses on whether the government is constitutionally allowed to contact social media platforms to request removal of alleged misinformation, repeated right-wing claims that social media platforms have censored conservative voices — which have been repeatedly debunked.An appeals court has currently stayed that injunction.

Diaz hosted Bailey for an August 1 interview on Twitter Spaces — which has become a popular place for previously suspended accounts that owner Elon Musk reinstated, including Diaz, to spread misinformation on the platform. During the interview, Bailey told Diaz that the lawsuit was “the most important First Amendment suit in at least a generation,” and Diaz said she had been “kind of pounding the pavement” regarding the lawsuit.

Beginning of Tracy Diaz’s Twitter Space with Andrew Bailey

AUGUST 1, 2023

Audio

CitationFrom an August 1, 2023, Twitter Space hosted by Tracy Diaz

TRACY DIAZ (HOST): OK, hi everyone. Thanks for joining us today. I’m super excited about this Space.I’ve had several Spaces about this case, and I’m really honored to be joined by Attorney General Andrew Bailey from Missouri to work with us on this. They’ve never done a Space before. I sent the invite for them to speak. They have my phone number. So if you have a problem, attorney general, just shoot me a text real quick and I will work with you to get this up and running. We have a couple questions from folks really eager to hear your perspective on things. And it’s going to be good stuff for sure.

…

So thanks for being here today. Super awesome of you to spend the time. Everybody in this Space is very interested in this case.

…

ANDREW BAILEY (MISSOURI ATTORNEY GENERAL): Yeah, well, first of all, thank you so much for having me on and the opportunity to chat with you. And this is the most important First Amendment suit in at least a generation.

…

But, you know, again, this [is]frightening stuff, and we're not going to let Joe Biden destroy the First Amendment.

DIAZ: Which is awesome. And, you know, I’ve been kind of pounding the pavement on this.

At the end of the Twitter Space, Diaz asked Bailey to say something “hopeful about the outcome” of the lawsuit to her followers.

End of Tracy Diaz’s Twitter Space with Andrew Bailey

AUGUST 1, 2023

Audio

CitationFrom an August 1, 2023, Twitter Space hosted by Tracy Diaz

TRACY DIAZ (HOST): Really gracious of you to give us a half hour of your time today. We're about three minutes out. Is there anything that you would like to say to all the folks here listening and who will listen to this after we’re done about, you know, being hopeful about the outcome of this or keeping faith in the Justice Department, at least for the litigation of this case and what it means?

ANDREW BAILEY (MISSOURI ATTORNEY GENERAL): Well, we’re not going to let up. Again, we’re going to continue to fight to preserve the First Amendment right to free speech in America. You know, at the end of the day,I served in the United States Army in the war on terror and took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. I was willing to put my life on the line to do it. Took that fight to the battlefield in the war on terror. That’s an oath I’ll never give up and it’s a fight I’m proud to be leading on behalf of the state of Missouri in the courtrooms across this nation, in the state of Missouri today.

DIAZ: Thank you so much. This has been really awesome. I really appreciate your time. All of us in here are following this daily. And a lot of people are really invested in it because it’s so important. So I appreciate you being here. Really, really awesome.

BAILEY: Well, thanks for having me on. Look forward to giving an update here in the coming days, weeks, and months.

Bailey also appeared on Diaz’s podcast on August 2, when Diaz complained that she had been banned from multiple platforms, and asked for how to “rectify what’s happened.” In response, Bailey expressed concern about “how many listeners do you have that were deprived of the information that you would have gotten to them.”

Video

CitationFrom the August 2, 2023, edition of Dark to Light

TRACY DIAZ (HOST): But me, I was censored off of Twitter. I’ve been censored off of Facebook. I’ve been debanked. I’ve been all — I can’t use PayPal. I’m censored.What — if this goes the way we think it will and you win, what does the everyday American — how can they rectify what’s happened to them, based on the [UNINTELLIGIBLE]?

ANDREW BAILEY (MISSOURI ATTORNEY GENERAL): Well, first of all, we can all celebrate the fact that we get our First Amendment right to free speech back. I mean, I think that was my tweet on July 4, like happy birthday, America, you get your First Amendment free speech back and we’ll keep fighting to do that. The wall of separation between tech and state is absolutely essential to protect all of our rights.

And, you know, whether there’s class certification or not, it is a nationwide injunction, and we’ll keep pushing forward with that nationwide injunction. It’s the state of Missouri v. Biden, Louisiana is on board and certainly there are private plaintiffs, but all Americans who have been censored on Big Tech social media platforms and any American — it’s not just those speakers who have been censored. That’s the important thing to remember, too. You might have been speaking, but how many listeners do you have that were deprived of the information that you would have gotten to them? It's the hearers of the information. And so it’s an exponential number of individuals whose constitutional rights to say and hear what they choose, absent government censorship, those rights have been violated, and that’s why the nationwide injunction is so important, and we’ll keep fighting to achieve that objective.

DIAZ: This is the most important civil rights case in modern history, hands down. There’s no doubt about it. I was saying it the day you filed the complaint and people are finally starting to catch up with how important this is. Attorney general, thank you so much for joining us today.

BAILEY: Thank you so much for having me on.

---

am 7 23 ff grab $

After Louisiana District Court Judge Terry A. Doughty ruled against against President Joe Biden administration officials earlier this month, legal experts questioned the legitimacy of the conservative's decision.

Doughty, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, issued a temporary injunction banning federal agencies from talking to social media companies with 'the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.'"

Following his ruling, Reuters reported "Several legal scholars and attorneys said while the lawsuit challenging the administration's communications with social media companies raised real free speech concerns, there wasno precedent to support the sweeping preliminary order" given by" Doughty "that would sharply limit dozens of government agencies and officials' communications with social media companies."

The Guardian reports GUK in addition to questions around the legal standing of Doughty's injunction — the decision "is also the latest in a wider rightwing campaign to weaken attempts at stopping false information and conspiracy theories from proliferating online, one that has included framing disinformation researchers and their efforts as part of a wide-reaching censorship regime."

As a result of the ruling, "Many of the researchers involved have faced significant harassment, leading to fears of a chilling effect on speaking out against disinformation ahead of the 2024 presidential election," according to the report.

The news outlet also points to the fact House GOP members "have put pressure on researchers through a House select subcommittee investigation that launched in January and claims it will look into the 'weaponization of the federal government,'" adding, "House judiciary committee chair, Jim Jordan, earlier this year issued a wide-ranging request for information and documents to multiple universities with programs aimed at researching disinformation, and has so far sent dozens of subpoenas."

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Massachusetts) criticized Jordan's ploy, saying, "This committee is nothing more than a deranged ploy by the Maga extremists who have hijacked the Republican party and now want to use taxpayer money to push their far-right conspiracy nonsense."

American Prospect's Ryan Cooper recently criticized Doughty's ruling, arguing it is a "'conspiracy theory' claiming that Twitter conspired against conservatives before Elon Musk purchased the company and took over as CEO," noting, "The plaintiffs claim they were silenced when pre-Musk Twitter deleted posts expressing opposition to COVID-19 vaccines."

Furthermore, The Guardian emphasizes, "Disinformation researchers have stated that Republican efforts to push back against content moderation and safeguards against misinformation threaten to open the floodgates for conspiracy theories and falsehoods ahead of the 2024 presidential election."

The New Republic's full report is available at this link.

From Your Site Articles

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

How Trump's judge appointments compare with other presidents ... ›

Aileen Cannon: Trump-appointed judge returns to spotlight in his ... ›

Biden has appointed 105 federal judges, outpacing Trump, Obama ... ›

---

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-administration-to-appeal-order-barring-talk-with-social-media-companies/ar-AA1dtUv7

vauge and self contradictory? --> 5TH VENUE SHOPPING

The Justice Department filed a notice of appeal Wednesday evening regarding a federal court ruling that would limit Biden administration officials’ communication with social media companies, a blow to the administration’s efforts to combat disinformation.

U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump appointee in Louisiana, ruled Tuesday that Biden administration officials cannot contact social media companies relating to “any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech posted on social-media platforms.”

That order came after two Republican attorneys general challenged the Biden administration’s efforts to curb false information online, which they called a “campaign of censorship.” The attorneys general said federal officials “coordinated and colluded with social-media platforms to identify disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content.”...

---

ref the hill

federal judge blocked Bidenadministration officials Tuesday from communicating with social media companies, astwo Republican state attorneys general challenge the legality of the administration’s efforts to curb disinformation.

U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, [ vax for rx workers?!]who was appointed by former President Trump, granted a preliminary injunction barring a wide swath of officials from theDepartment of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Justice, the State Department and the FBI from communicating with the companies.

The Republican attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri are suing the administration over what they describe as a “campaign of censorship,” in which the Biden administration allegedly “coordinated and colluded with social-media platforms to identify disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content.”

They argued that administration officials’ public and private communications with social media companies about removing content related to COVID-19 vaccines and public health measures, election integrity and other topics violated the First Amendment.

The attorneys general pointed to various calls by the 2020 Biden campaign and later the Biden administration, as well other Democratic lawmakers, to reform Section 230 over the spread of disinformation, which the lawsuit characterized as “threats” and a “campaign of pressure.”

Section 230 waives social media companies’ liability for content posted on its platforms by third parties.

They also cited efforts by the Biden administration to work with social media companies to rein in COVID-19 and election disinformation, which the suit described as “collusion.” [fauci said deworm no work, tho no causal link]

Under the injunction, Biden administration officials cannot email, call, send letters, text or meet with 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,” Doughty ruled.

However, Biden administration officials are still permitted to communicate with the platforms about criminal activity, national security threats,threats to public safety [but not health?]and posts “intending to mislead voters about voting requirements and procedures.”

TAGS BIDEN ADMINISTRATION FIRST AMENDMENT FREE SPEECH JOE BIDEN SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS TERRY DOUGHTY

---

ref nyt

bing steal no lnx

G.O.P. Targets Researchers Who Study Disinformation Ahead of 2024 Election

A legal campaign against universities and think tanks seeks to undermine the fight against false claims about elections, vaccines and other hot political topics.

By Steven Lee Myers and Sheera Frenkel

June 19, 2023

On Capitol Hill and in the courts, Republican lawmakers and activists are mounting a sweeping legal campaign against universities, think tanks and private companies that study the spread of disinformation, accusing them of colluding with the government to suppress conservative speech online.

The effort has encumbered its targets with expansive requests for information and, in some cases, subpoenas — demanding notes, emails and other information related to social media companies and the government dating back to 2015. Complying has consumed time and resources and already affected the groups’ ability to do research and raise money,according to several people involved.

They and others warned that the campaign undermined the fight against disinformation in American society when the problem is, by most accounts, on the rise— and when another presidential election is around the corner. Many of those behind the Republican effort had also joined former President Donald J. Trump in falsely challenging the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.

“I think it’s quite obviously a cynical — and I would say wildly partisan — attempt to chill research,” said Jameel Jaffer, the executive director ofColumbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute,an organization that works to safeguard freedom of speech and the press.

:{:{}:

The House Judiciary Committee, which in January came under Republican majority control, has sent scores of letters and subpoenas to the researchers — only some of which have been made public. It has threatened legal action against those who have not responded quickly or fully enough.

A conservative advocacy group led by Stephen Miller, the former adviser to Mr. Trump, filed a class-action lawsuit last month inU.S. District Court in Louisiana that echoes many of the committee’s accusations and focuses on some of the same defendants.

:{:{}:

Targets include Stanford, Clemson and New York Universities and the University of Washington; the Atlantic Council, the German Marshall Fund and the National Conference on Citizenship, all nonpartisan, nongovernmental organizations in Washington; the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco; and Graphika, a company that researches disinformation online.

In a related line of inquiry, the committee has also issued a subpoena to the World Federation of Advertisers, a trade association, and the Global Alliance for Responsible Media it created. The committee’s Republican leaders have accused the groups of violating antitrust laws by conspiring to cut off advertising revenue for content researchers and tech companies found to be harmful.

A House subcommittee was created to scrutinize what Republicans have charged is a government effort to silence conservatives. Credit...Kenny Holston/The New York Times

The committee’s chairman, Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, a close ally of Mr. Trump, has accused the organizations of “censorship of disfavored speech” involving issues that have galvanized the Republican Party: the policies around the Covid-19 pandemic and the integrity of the American political system, including the outcome of the 2020 election.

Much of the disinformation surrounding both issues has come from the right. Many Republicans are convinced that researchers who study disinformation have pressed social media platforms to discriminate against conservative voices.

[The Spread of Misinformation and Falsehoods

The Titanic Truthers of TikTok: On the app, long-established facts about the 1912 disaster are being newly litigated as musty rumors merge with fresh misinformation and manipulated content.

A Global Effort: A group of scholars introduced an international panel to study online misinformation, inspired by the way scientists documented the global effect of carbon emissions.

A Hub for Conspiracy Theories: The Denver airport is a magnet for tall tales inspired by the paranormal — and an experiment into whether, sometimes, institutional fabulism can just be fun.

Climate Lies: In 2021, Google said that it would stop running ads alongside content that denied climate change. But a report shows that one of its platforms, YouTube, has continued to profit from videos pushing misinformation on the topic.]

Those complaints have been fueled by Twitter’s decision under its new owner, Elon Musk, to release selected internal communications between government officials and Twitter employees. The communications show government officials urging Twitter to take action against accounts spreading disinformation but stopping short of ordering them to do, as some critics claimed.

Patrick L. Warren, an associate professor at Clemson University, said researchers at the school have provided documents to the committee, and given some staff members a short presentation. “I think most of this has been spurred by our appearance in the Twitter files, which left people with a pretty distorted sense of our mission and work,” he said.

Last year, the Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana sued the Biden administration in U.S. District Court in Louisiana, arguing that government officials effectively cajoled or coerced Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms by threatening legislative changes.The judge, Terry A. Doughty, rejected a defense motion to dismiss the lawsuit in March.

The current campaign’s focus is not government officials but rather private individuals working for universities or nongovernmental organizations. They have their own First Amendment guarantees of free speech, including their interactions with the social media companies.

The group behind the class action, America First Legal, named as defendants two researchers at the Stanford Internet Observatory, Alex Stamos and Renée DiResta; a professor at the University of Washington, Kate Starbird; an executive of Graphika, Camille François; and the senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, Graham Brookie.

If the lawsuit proceeds, they could face trial and, potentially, civil damages if the accusations are upheld.

Mr. Miller, the president of America First Legal, did not respond to a request for comment. In a statement last month, he said the lawsuit was “striking at the heart of the censorship-industrial complex.”

The researchers, who have been asked by the House committee to submit emails and other records, are also defendants in the lawsuit brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana. The plaintiffs include Jill Hines, a director of Health Freedom Louisiana, an organization that has been accused of disinformation, and Jim Hoft, the founder of the Gateway Pundit, a right-wing news site. The court in the Western District of Louisiana has, under Judge Doughty, become a favored venue for legal challenges against the Biden administration.

The attacks use “the same argument that starts with some false premises,” said Jeff Hancock, the founding director of the Stanford Social Media Lab, which is not a party to any of the legal action. “We see it in the media, in the congressional committees and in lawsuits, and it is the same core argument, with a false premise about the government giving some type of direction to the research we do.”

The House Judiciary Committee has focused much of its questioning on two collaborative projects. One was the Election Integrity Partnership, which Stanford and the University of Washington formed before the 2020 electionto identify attempts “to suppress voting, reduce participation, confuse voters or delegitimize election results without evidence.” The other, also organized by Stanford, was called the Virality Project and focused on the spread of disinformation about Covid-19 vaccines.

Both subjects have become political lightning rods, exposing the researchers to partisan attacks online that have become ominously personal at times.

In the case of the Stanford Internet Observatory, the requests for information — including all emails — have even extended to students who volunteered to work as interns for the Election Integrity Partnership.

A central premise of the committee’s investigation — and the other complaints about censorship — is that the researchers or government officials had the power or ability to shut down accounts on social media. They did not, according to former employees at Twitter and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, who said the decision to punish users who violated platform rules belonged solely to the companies.

No evidence has emerged that government officials coerced the companies to take action against accounts, even when the groups flagged problematic content.

“We have not only academic freedom as researchers to conduct this research but freedom of speech to tell Twitter or any other company to look at tweets we might think violate rules,” Mr. Hancock said.

The universities and research organizations have sought to comply with the committee’s requests, though the collection of years of emails has been a time-consuming task complicated by issues of privacy. They face mounting legal costs and questions from directors and donors about the risks raised by studying disinformation. Online attacks have also taken a toll on morale and, in some cases, scared away students.

In May, Mr. Jordan, the committee’s chairman, threatened Stanford with unspecified legal action for not complying with a previously issued subpoena, even though the university’s lawyers have been negotiating with the committee’s lawyers over how to shield students’ privacy. (Several of the students who volunteered are identified in the America First Legal lawsuit.)

The committee declined to discuss details of the investigation, including how many requests or subpoenas it has filed in total. Nor has it disclosed how it expects the inquiry to unfold — whether it would prepare a final report or make criminal referrals and, if so, when. In its statements, though, it appears to have already reached a broad conclusion.

“The Twitter files and information from private litigation show how the federal government worked with social media companies and other entities to silence disfavored speech online,” a spokesman, Russell Dye, said in a statement. “The committee is working hard to get to the bottom of this censorship to protect First Amendment rights for all Americans.”

The partisan controversy is having an effect on not only the researchers but also the social media giants.

:{:{}:

Twitter, under Mr. Musk, has made a point of lifting restrictions and restoring accounts that had been suspended, including theGateway Pundit’s. YouTube recently announced that it would no longer ban videos that advanced “false claims that widespread fraud, errors or glitches occurred in the 2020 and other past U.S. presidential elections.”

Steven Lee Myers covers misinformation for The Times. He has worked in Washington, Moscow, Baghdad and Beijing, where he contributed to the articles that won the Pulitzer Prize for public service in 2021. He is also the author of “The New Tsar: The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin.” @stevenleemyers • Facebook

Sheera Frenkel is a prize-winning technology reporter based in San Francisco. In 2021, she and Cecilia Kang published “An Ugly Truth: Inside Facebook's Battle for Domination.” @sheeraf

---

6 23

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_A._Doughty

terry Alvin Doughty (born January 16, 1959) is the Chief United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Nominated by President Donald Trump, Doughty previously served in the Fifth Judicial District Court in Louisiana.

Biography

Doughty was born on January 16, 1959, in Rayville in Richland Parish in northeastern Louisiana.^[1] He received his Bachelor of Science in finance from Louisiana Tech University and his Juris Doctor from the Louisiana State University Law School.^[2]

State judicial service

As a judge, Doughty presided over criminal, civil, and juvenile cases arising in the parishes of Franklin, Richland, and West Carroll. Elected in 2008 to serve as a judge of the Fifth Judicial District in Louisiana, he replaced retiring Judge Glenn W. Strong. He assumed that office on January 1, 2009.^[3]

In 2015, Doughty was re-elected to the courtand received the Citizen Lawyer Award from the Louisiana State Bar Association. From 1985 through 2008, Doughty served as an assistant district attorney for the Fifth Judicial District. During that period, he prosecuted misdemeanor and felony cases, and litigated post-conviction proceedings and juvenile cases. Prior to joining the district attorney's office, he practiced at the Rayville firm of Cotton, Bolton, Hoychick & Doughty.^[2] Doughty retired from the state bench on March 8, 2018.^[4]

Federal judicial service

On August 3, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Doughty to serve as a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, to the seat vacated by Judge Robert G. James, who assumed senior status on May 31, 2016.^[5] On November 1, 2017, a hearing on his nomination was held before the Senate Judiciary Committee.^[6] On December 7, 2017, his nomination was reported out of committee by a voice vote.^[7] On March 1, 2018, the United States Senate invoked cloture on his nomination by a 94–2 vote.^[8] Doughty's nomination was confirmed on March 6, 2018 by a 98–0 vote.^[9] He received his commission on March 7, 2018. He became chief judge on December 5, 2022.^[10]

:{The nomination was endorsed by U.S. Representative Ralph Abraham of Louisiana's 5th congressional district, who like Doughty resides in Richland Parish, and U.S. Senators Bill Cassidy and John Neely Kennedy.^[11] Doughty was rated "well qualified" by the American Bar Associatio:(style="background-color:#ffff66ff"):}:n:{.}:^[12]

Block on COVID-19 vaccine mandate

In 2021, Doughty issued a nationwide injunction against a federal mandate that health care workers be vaccinated against COVID-19.^[13] Doughty's opinion includes manyfalse and misleading claims about COVID-19 vaccines, including an incorrect suggestion that vaccines are not useful because booster shots are recommended after six months, a misleading statement that vaccines "do not prevent transmission of the disease", and the falsehood that "the virus has achieved an immune escape from COVID-19 vaccines". Doughty's opinion uncritically invoked the views of a doctor who is a known for making false claims about the COVID-19 vaccine.^[14][15]

On New Year's Day 2022, Doughty issued an injunction on a federal mandate that would require workers at Head Start (a pre-K program) to be vaccinated from COVID-19. Doughty's ruling applied to the 24 states whose Attorneys General signed on to the lawsuit.^[16]

On September 21, 2022, Doughty entered a permanent injunction against a federal vaccine and mask mandate for the Head Start program in 24 states, which would have required its teachers, contractors, and volunteers to be fully vaccinated, stating that Biden did not have constitutional authority to issue such mandate.^[17]

---

ballot

United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana is one of 94 United States district courts. When decisions of the court are appealed, they are appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, based in New Orleans, at the John Minor Wisdom Federal Courthouse.

The Western District of Louisiana has original jurisdiction over cases filed within its jurisdiction. These cases can include civil and criminal matters that fall under federal law.

The geographic jurisdiction of the Western District of Louisiana consists of all the following parishes in the western part of the state of Louisiana.[[10]](https://ballotpedia.org/Terry_A._Doughty#cite_note-10)

---

What we know about Judge Terry Doughty, who blocked Biden's COVID vaccine mandate and drilling ban

Greg Hilburn

Lafayette Daily Advertiser

U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty

Louisiana U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, who in the past six months has blocked President Biden's nationwide COVID-19 vaccine mandate for health care workers and lifted Biden's ban on new federal leases for oil and gas drilling, doesn't consider himself political.

"There's no question I'm conservative, but my decisions are never about politics," Doughty told USA Today Network Wednesday, a day after ruling against the vaccine mandate. "I call them like I see them. I just look at the cases and try to follow the law."

Doughty, 62, a Republican nominated by former President Trump in 2017 and confirmed by the Senate in 2018 on a 98-0 vote, began his career as "a country lawyer" in Rayville, a small town of fewer than 4,000 people in northeastern Louisiana.

He still lives outside the town on a row crop farm owned and managed by his wife, commuting daily to his Western District office in Monroe, the commercial hub of the region.

Doughty, a Louisiana Tech University and LSU Law School graduate, served nine years as an elected state district judge before his appointment to the federal bench.

He said his support has been bipartisan throughout his career, noting Democratic Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards wrote a letter of support for his nomination to the federal bench when President Obama was in office.

Read the order:Judge Doughty's order blocking Biden's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers

Doughty said his appointment as a federal judge was his "dream job. I love coming to work every day," he said.

Doughty said he follows traditional news outlets like newspapers and TV, but he's not on any social media platforms like Facebook or Twitter, which insulates him from both fierce critics and ardent supporters.

"I got off Facebook as soon as I didn't have to run for elective office anymore," he said.

Federal judges have lifetime appointments.

Vaccine ruling: Protecting 'liberty interests of the unvaccinated'

On Wednesday Doughty issued a nationwide injunction on a federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate for health care workers at providers who accept Medicare and Medicaid.

Doughty ruled on the lawsuit led by Republican Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and joined by 13 other states, but Doughty added a nationwide injunction in his ruling.

In his decision, Doughty wrote the Biden Administration doesn't have the authority to bypass Congress in issuing such a mandate.

Louisiana Attorney General:Vaccine mandate halt a 'major win'

Follow this story:Louisiana Supreme Court to hear Ochsner COVID-19 vaccine mandate case

"If the executive branch is allowed to usurp the power of the legislative branch to make laws, two of the three powers conferred by our Constitution would be in the same hands," he wrote. "If human nature and history teach anything, it is that civil liberties face grave risks when governments proclaim indefinite states of emergency.

The emergency regulation issued Nov. 4 by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services would have required staff at providers that participate in the programs to receive at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by Dec. 6 and be fully vaccinated by Jan. 4, 2022.

:{:{}:

It would have covered more than 17 million health care workers, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Drilling ban: No 'rational explanation'

:{:{}:

Last summer Doughty lifted the Biden administration’s moratorium on new oil and gas leases on federal land and waters.

:{:{}:

That paved the way for a $192 million lease sale in November for drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico, the first auction since Biden issued his ban in January to combat climate change.

Drilling ban: 'A win for the entire country': Louisiana oil advocates celebrate decision on moratorium

Doughty’s ruling came in a lawsuit filed in March also filed by Landry and officials in 12 other states, but it applies nationwide.

“The omission of any rational explanation in cancelling the lease sales, and in enacting the Pause, results in this Court ruling that Plaintiff States also have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of this claim,” he wrote.

The Biden administration has appealed the ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans

Greg Hilburn covers state politics for the USA TODAY Network of Louisiana. Follow him on Twitter @GregHilburn1.

---

ALAN FEUER

and

CHARLIE SAVAGE

The New York Times

WASHINGTON — A scathing decision Thursday by a federal appeals court panel that shut down a lower court judge’s interference in a criminal investigation involving former President Donald Trump has highlighted a question: Is there such a thing as a Trump judge?

The case pitted one Trump appointee against two others. On one side was Judge Aileen Cannon of the Southern District of Florida, who legal experts across the ideological spectrum said showed unusual solicitude to the former president. On the other were two of the three judges who overturned her, Andrew Brasher and Britt Grant, who said she had greatly overstepped her authority in getting involved.

The disagreement cast into sharp relief the complexity of Trump’s outsize imprint on the judiciary for a one-term president. While most of his picks clearly lean conservative, their rulings have shown that they are not all inclined to do whatever is expedient for Trump or the Republican Party....[doughty?]

---

oil lease decision is BS pretextual

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1190&context=djclpp

---

just stats? all?

https://firstliberty.org/district-nominees/

---

Lawsuit Threatens To Blow Up The Censorship-Industrial ...

:{:{}:

The Federalist

https://thefederalist.com › Latest

:{:{}:

May 2, 2023 — There is only one active federal judge in the Monroe Division — Trump appointee Terry A. Doughty — so it is likely the case will be assigned ...

### Court: Fauci, Biden Officials Must Cough Up Records ...

https://thefederalist.com › Latest

Sep 7, 2022 — Writing for the Western District of Louisiana Court, Judge Terry A. Doughty noted how the plaintiffs “are entitled to external ...

Two Trump-appointed judges rebuke a third for bending ...

:{:{}:

The Seattle Times

https://www.seattletimes.com › nation-world › two-trump...

:{:{}:

Dec 2, 2022 — In Louisiana last year, Judge Terry A. Doughty blocked the Biden ... the Federalist Society, from which many of his judicial appointments ...

Missouri v. Biden, 3:22-CV-01213

:{:{}:

Casetext

https://casetext.com › ... › WD LA › 2023 › March

:{:{}:

Mar 20, 2023 — TERRY A. DOUGHTY. JUDGE. Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 128] filed by Defendants,seeking dismissal of all claims ...

---