Journalist Glenn Greenwald reminded users on X on Sunday of the “most under-reported and under-discussed story of 2023.”
And it’s a doozy.
A “federal district court judge, upheld by a unanimous appellate panel, found the Biden WH and FBI committed one of the gravest attacks on the 1st Am in decades by coercing Big Tech to censor dissent online,” the former attorney stated.
The most under-reported and under-discussed story of 2023: a federal district court judge, upheld by a unanimous appellate panel, found the Biden WH and FBI committed one of the gravest attacks on the 1st Am in decades by coercing Big Tech to censor dissent online. pic.twitter.com/00MamRBUdw — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 17, 2024
Attached to his post was a screenshot of a Sept 11, 2023, story written by Lauren Feiner for CNBC.
“A federal appeals court on Friday limited the scope of a district court ruling that restricted communications between government agencies and social media companies,” Feiner wrote at the time. “But the appeals panel agreed that several federal offices and agencies, including the White House, likely violated the First Amendment by coercing the platforms’ content moderation decisions.”
“The appeals court decision means that some federal agencies — the State Department, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases — will not be subject to the injunction,” she reported.
“Justice Samuel Alito temporarily froze the injunction until Sept. 22 last week after the Biden administration requested a stay,” BizPac Review reported on Sept. 23, 2023. “On Friday, the justices extended the stay to Sept. 27.”
In limiting the scope, Feiner explained, the appeals court ruling made it “easier for several federal agencies to communicate with social media companies such as Meta, Google, and X, formerly known as Twitter, to flag concerns they see on the platforms.”
“Still,” she continued, “officials who remain subject to the modified injunction, including those in the White House, must remain careful that their discussions with the platforms won’t be construed as coercive.”
As Greenwald noted, the now-infamous “Twitter Files,” released on X shortly after Elon Musk took the reins, exposed much of the coercion the year before the court ruling.
Twitter Files show FBI acted as ‘subsidiary’ of the social media platform, trying to censor users and tweets https://t.co/rupl35EnPO pic.twitter.com/UXRfHGEdPs — BPR (@BIZPACReview) December 17, 2022
“Even worse: the Twitter Files was not the first reporting to prove that the Biden Amin was doing this, but it was the most significant given how much evidence it presented,” the journalist wrote. “And corporate outlets united like herd animals to implore the public to ignore it: ‘nothing burger.'”
Even worse: the Twitter Files was not the first reporting to prove that the Biden Amin was doing this, but it was the most significant given how much evidence it presented. And corporate outlets united like herd animals to implore the public to ignore it: “nothing burger.” — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 17, 2024
Greenwald’s attempt to yank the disturbing assault on the First Amendment from the depths of an orchestrated memory hold didn’t fall on deaf ears.
“It will be in the history books if I have to stay alive to make sure,” vowed one user.
“It’s the way they stole the 2020 election, by keeping news of the content of Hunter’s laptop off social media they changed the outcome of the election,” noted another.
“And unfortunately, it worked!” said a third. “It’s so far from the minds of people, that it is happening again! In broad daylight to boot.”
It will be in the history books if I have to stay alive to make sure. — Margaret Auburn Grad 1776 (@MargaretAUGrad) March 18, 2024
It’s the way they stole the 2020 election, by keeping news of the content of Hunter’s laptop off social media they changed the outcome of the election — Ken Huston (@kenhuston580) March 18, 2024
And unfortunately, it worked! It’s so far from the minds of people, that it is happening again! In broad daylight to boot — Rob Clark (@RobClar97345751) March 17, 2024
“Yep,” one user agreed. “When you ignore a crime, you either are in agreement or afraid of harm from the people or agency who committed the crime.”
Yep. When you ignore a crime , you either are in agreement or afraid of harm from the people or agency who committed the crime — Elizabeth Hoeppner (@EHoeppner25639) March 17, 2024