Connect with us


Orwellian Echoes: Federal Judge Questions Biden’s Big Tech Censorship



Knowledge Nuggets:

  • President Joe Biden’s administration is facing accusations of collaborating with Big Tech to stifle free speech, a move that’s led a federal judge to draw parallels with George Orwell’s “1984.”
  • The concerns emerged during the ongoing Missouri v. Biden case, where Chief District Judge Terry A. Doughty probed the administration’s efforts to suppress narratives deemed “misinformation” on social media platforms.
  • Missouri Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey contends that the administration’s collaboration with Big Tech companies has jeopardized citizens’ First Amendment rights, citing evidence of platforms like Facebook suppressing content regarding COVID-19 vaccines at the behest of the administration.

In a narrative that seems to parallel the pages of George Orwell’s “1984”, the Biden administration’s alleged censorship in collaboration with Big Tech companies has drawn criticism from federal judge Terry A. Doughty.

The chief district judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana questioned the administration’s possible encroachment on the First Amendment during a hearing on May 26, in the case of Missouri v. Biden.

The questions arose amidst the ongoing litigation that revolves around the administration’s alleged attempts to stifle free speech.

The administration has been advising tech giants to flag “misinformation”, thus raising concerns about narrative control.

Missouri Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey took to Twitter, revealing the administration’s struggle in convincing the court that there was no coercion on social media platforms to suppress free speech.

Evidence presented in court includes documents where Facebook admitted to suppressing content that could induce vaccine hesitancy, even if that content was factually accurate.

Interestingly, Judge Doughty’s hypothetical questions to the Biden administration centered on whether voicing unpopular opinions, such as questioning the efficacy of masks or vaccines, fell under the protection of the First Amendment.

The answers, as per Bailey, were often inconclusive or contingent.


The battle over free speech is indicative of the tension between the administration’s efforts to control narratives it deems harmful and the protection of constitutional rights.

The situation reflects a broader societal debate about information control, with technology companies under scrutiny for their role in the process.

Clear Thoughts:

Is this the dawn of the Orwellian era or just another day in Joe Biden’s America? What’s the difference?

The recent developments in the Missouri v. Biden case have made the alleged collaboration between the Biden administration and Big Tech a cause for concern. It seems the first amendment, one of the pillars upon which this great nation was founded, is being eroded for the sake of controlling narratives.

Judge Terry A. Doughty’s inquiry into this matter is spot-on and well-grounded in the very principles that form our democratic republic. It’s indeed worrisome when an administration appears to prefer narrative control over protecting the freedoms that distinguish our nation.

But what we’re seeing here is more than just a case of free speech suppression. This administration seems to be practicing a new form of “doublethink”.

On one hand, they claim to uphold the rights of citizens, while on the other, they apparently collude with social media giants to suppress “misinformation”.

Isn’t it the citizen’s right to question, to challenge, and yes, even to err?


This tactic of circumventing the First Amendment, under the guise of controlling misinformation, sends a chill down the spine of every freedom-loving American.

The administration’s responses to Judge Doughty’s queries indicate a willingness to blur the boundaries of our freedoms, based on their interpretation of what’s appropriate or safe.

One thing is for sure: Big Brother is watching you.

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently.

We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives.

They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal.

We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.

The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.” George Orwell, 1984




  1. Jim West

    June 16, 2023 at 7:20 am

    THe attach on the First Amendment today is worse than just censoring our ability to speak.
    The problem is made worse by big tech mass media news companies censoring the news, either by omitting information on an important subject, or by not broadcasting factual information about important real events. Something must be done to break the tight relationship between the big tech news media companies that pretend to be a non-biased public news source, when in reality, they are merely a propaganda machine controlled by government officials. At some point, companies pretending to be non-biased public news companies, when in reality they are simply a propaganda machine, should have their FCC licenses suspended, if the evidence is compelling enough to demonstrate their broadcasts are nothing more than a propaganda fraud. An example of information censorship is when public news organizations fail to broadcasts information on the evidence of a government official accepting million dollar in bribes, in exchange for some service, is not reported. That ommision is not news, that omission is pure propaganda. Fake news companies are engaged in censorship both in reporting the news, and in censoring different honest views on critical subjects. This is a dangerous situation for a Democracy, when the public is not accurately informed on important news issues.

  2. LMB

    June 16, 2023 at 9:55 am

    Finally, a federal judge appears to understand the Left’s sneaky actions to shut up anyone that questions Big Brother!!

  3. SHRW

    June 16, 2023 at 10:42 am

    Who gets to decide what is disinformation and what is not? And how can this arbitrary arbiter of information be trusted? Attributing negative labels to speech is a method of censoring free speech and silencing opposition. Such actions by the government are nothing less than an attack on the Constitution and our freedom of speech. It is a method to control the narrative and redirect people’ thinking. Are we a free people or subjects of the government?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

" "