President Joe Biden’s actions regarding censorship and his relationship with Big Tech companies have raised concerns among conservatives, including a federal judge who drew comparisons to George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984.” During a recent hearing on the case of Missouri v. Biden, Judge Terry A. Doughty expressed his suspicion about the administration’s efforts to censor free speech in collaboration with social media platforms. The judge’s inquiry about whether the administration had read “1984” highlighted the similarities he observed between the court case and the book. This questioning came as the Biden administration’s lawyers attempted to address concerns about free speech but seemingly failed to alleviate the judge’s doubts.
In “1984,” Orwell presents a grim world where a totalitarian government employs constant surveillance and manipulative tactics to control the thoughts and actions of its citizens. The judge’s invocation of terms such as “Big Brother,” “thoughtcrime,” and “doublethink” emphasizes the perceived parallels between the book’s themes and the tools used by some elites to enforce ideological conformity and restrict dissent.
While the Biden administration has not directly ordered Facebook or Twitter to censor speech on their platforms, it has been reported that government agencies have urged these social media companies to combat “misinformation” and suppress certain narratives. Critics argue that this collaboration between Big Tech, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the FBI has resulted in the enforcement of official narratives on topics like the COVID-19 pandemic, often stifling alternative perspectives and dissenting voices under the guise of safety and scientific consensus.
Missouri Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who is leading a free-speech lawsuit, has uncovered documents revealing Facebook’s admission to suppressing “often true” content related to COVID-19 vaccines because it might create vaccine hesitancy. During the recent hearing, the judge posed hypothetical questions to the Biden administration, inquiring whether the First Amendment protected individuals expressing unpopular views that contradicted the administration’s stance. The administration’s response was equivocal, suggesting that while such speech “could” be protected, it often would not be.
Bailey highlighted examples such as questioning the safety or efficacy of masks or vaccines, attributing high gas prices and inflation to President Biden, or stating that the 2020 election was stolen. The administration’s lawyers responded with conditional answers, leaving room for interpretation and potential limitations on free speech rights. The judge also noted the apparent targeting of conservatives for censorship, prompting the administration’s lawyers to provide just one example of a liberal being censored for “misinformation.” Interestingly, the mentioned individual turned out to be a political opponent of President Biden, although their identity was not revealed.
Given the inconsistencies and ambiguities in the administration’s responses, the judge questioned why he should trust their claims that the censorship had ceased. Bailey’s office has requested a preliminary injunction to halt this perceived censorship campaign. The attorney general’s spokesperson characterized the Biden administration’s approach to censorship as Orwellian, emphasizing that the answers provided during the hearing only reinforced the comparisons to “1984” and supported the judge’s concerns. This ongoing legal battle highlights the conservative perspective on the importance of upholding free speech rights and resisting any perceived encroachment on those rights, particularly in the realm of online discourse.
