Patriot,

Last week, a federal court issued a blistering 155-page decision
and order prohibiting the federal government from pressuring
social media companies to censor their users and their users'
views.

As I discussed in my most recent column - read it below - this is
a huge victory for the First Amendment, and a defeat for those
government entities trying to censor the Internet.

The government has asked for a stay of the judge's injunction
against social media pending appeal, and just yesterday, the
plaintiffs issued their reply, going through painstaking detail
how the government was attempting to use broad and vague
insinuations to demand they be allowed to continue censoring on
social media. Their reply concluded:

In essence, Defendants argue that the injunction should be stayed
because it might interfere with the Government's ability to
continue working with social-media companies to censor Americans'
core political speech on the basis of viewpoint. In other words,
the Government seeks a stay of the injunction so that it can
continue violating the First Amendment. The motion for stay
should be denied.

And just now - this is breaking news - the judge has sided with
the plaintiffs, against the government, and upheld its own order
to stop government censorship of social media.

This is a critical case for free speech, and so far, it's going
very well. Campaign for Liberty will keep you updated on this
case as it develops.

Remember, Campaign for Liberty itself is among the many victims
of government censorship on social media - when we have been
right all along about Covid, election integrity issues, and so
much more.

If you support Campaign for Liberty's continued efforts to defend
and restore the Constitution and Bill of Rights, please consider
chipping in a contribution today to support our work.
[link removed]

For Liberty,

Ron Paul
Chairman, Campaign for Liberty

Federal Court Made this July 4th a True Independence Day

While Americans were enjoying hot dogs and fireworks this Fourth
of July, federal Judge Terry A. Doughty commemorated Independence
Day by striking a blow for the separation of big tech and state.
Specifically, he issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting a
number of government officials and agencies from communicating
with social media companies to request they censor certain posts.


Judge Doughty wrote that, "If the allegations made by Plaintiffs
are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive
attack against free speech in United States' history." This may
seem like hyperbole until one considers that the list of those
affected by this injunction includes White House Press Secretary
Karine Jean-Pierre, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, the State and Health and Human Services Departments,
as well as the Justice Department and the FBI.

Among the plaintiffs are Harvard Professor Martin Kulldorff and
Stanford Professor Jay Bhattacharya. Professors Kulldorff and
Bhattacharya were among the health experts who big tech censored
at the behest of government because they dared question the
government's message regarding Covid. People questioning
government supported claims of the benefits of lockdowns, the
efficacy and safety of Covid vaccines, the use of masks to
protect against infection, and vaccine immunity being superior to
natural immunity was silenced.

Eventually the establishment was forced to admit that many of the
arguments of those like Kulldorff and Bhattacharya were correct.
However, by that point many of those courageous enough to speak
out had already suffered irreparable damage to their reputations
and careers. Contrary to the Covid authoritarians and other users
of science claims to promote statist policies like the
anti-"climate change" movement, science is in fact never settled.


While much of the lawsuit concerns Covid censorship, some of the
components revolve around efforts to suppress the Hunter Biden
laptop story. The effort to suppress and discredit the story may
have influenced the election. Some Biden voters would have voted
differently had they had full access to the information.

The suppression of the truth about Covid and the suppression of
the Hunter Biden laptop story were both justified as serving a
"higher good." With regard to Covid, the online censorship was
justified as necessary to protect public health. In the case of
the laptop story, it was justified as necessary to prevent Donald
Trump from winning a second term. The now more widely known
revelations regarding Hunter Biden's business dealings and the
possibility that his father not just profited from them but used
his position in government to be an active participant may help
Donald Trump regain the Oval Office in 2024.

Reading the emails between government officials and employees of
big tech companies shows that government officials clearly
believed they had every right to tell these private companies how
to run their businesses. The government officials even "reminded"
them that the companies were in danger of having increased
regulations imposed on them by the White House and Congress. This
shows the folly of those who think that increasing government
involvement with big tech will somehow reduce big tech
censorship. The only way to make the internet a free speech zone
is to build on Judge Doughty's decision: separate big tech and
state.
[link removed]

If you'd prefer to donate via PayPal, please click here.
[link removed]

Join Ron Paul's Patriot Club with a monthly contribution! Your
support sustains our work and members are automatically entered
to receive special giveaways autographed by Ron Paul.
[link removed]

The mission of Campaign for Liberty is to promote and defend the
great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional
government, sound money, free markets, and a constitutional
foreign policy, by means of education, issue advocacy, and
grassroots mobilization.

© Campaign for Liberty, 2012. Paid for by Campaign for Liberty
and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

Because of Campaign For Liberty's tax-exempt status under IRC
Sec. 501(C)(4) and its state and federal legislative activities,
contributions are not tax deductible as charitable contributions
(IRC § 170) or as business deductions (IRC §
162(e)(1)).

www.CampaignForLiberty.org


This message was intended for: [email protected]
You were added to the system June 27, 2019 [More information].
Update your preferences | Unsubscribe

----Powered by Paramount Communication----
[link removed]