Finally! Welcome to the fight against Big Gov't and Big Tech!

Do you think the government has the power to force anyone to deliver messages with which they disagree?

Of course not. This is America! And that's been against the law forever. That's what freedom is all about. It always has been.

Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a strong and compelling defense of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech for all in its decision on 303 Creative v. Elenis.

By a 6 to 3 decision, the court held that Colorado could not use its public accommodation laws to force Lorie Smith, owner of 303 Creative (a web design firm), to create websites for same-sex weddings if she began designing websites for other weddings.

"Freedom of speech is put to its greatest test when speech involves positions that have fallen out of favor with popular trends," said attorney Michael Farris. "But the court stood firm as it did when popular majorities tried to coerce Jehovah's Witness children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in violation of their religious beliefs during World War II. Speech needs the greatest protection, not the least, when it differs from the values of today's elites."

But remember, the Supreme Court has been under attack by the Biden administration for almost three years since it gained its equilibrium thanks to President Donald Trump. Where would be without him? The most recent appointment to the high court couldn't tell us what a woman is. Judges and ttorneys like Michael Farris are far outnumbered in the courts. We have a long way to go to save America in the courts – not to mention Congress.

At least we're winning – for the moment.

In another case, the American Center for Law and Justice has filed a brief with an oversight board for tech companies Facebook and Instagram that challenges their censorship of pro-life speech. The fight is growing bigger and bigger in the U.S. these days just a year after the Supreme Court tossed out the fatally flawed Roe precedent from 50 years ago that created a "right" to abortion and inserted it into the Constitution.

The ACLJ said the fight right now is over the "fair and equal right to use public platforms for the communication of sanctity of life views."

The digital corporate giants, along with the White House, have been censoring such speech. Now, the ACLJ said, it has delivered to Meta, the corporate ownership of Facebook and Instagram, its argument that the 300-some million users of the two computer software programs should be allowed to express their pro-life views.

The ACLJ said it is urging the oversight board to require Facebook and Instagram to recognize that "pro-life messaging must be protected."

"We also pointed out exactly how that could be done," said the ACLJ.

It explained one of the censored comments was from a pro-lifer who cited the morally bankrupt and illogical claim from pro-abortion radicals.

They "suggest that abortion somehow rescues an infant from being unwanted, and therefore is a form of compassion. The Facebook post described 'Pro-Abortion logic' of the 'liberal left' as saying, in effect, that 'We don't want you to be poor, starved or unwanted. So we'll just kill you instead.'"

That's the way the "culture" has shifted over time.

It was censored because it included "kill," even though the company rules allow its use in such situations as, "Terrorists deserve to be killed."

"Only after the pro-life Facebook user's post was blocked and the user appealed to the Oversight Board, and two other blocked users who were pro-abortion also appealed, did Meta executives admit the error and restore all three posts. But by then, from a free speech standpoint, the damage had already been done," the ACLJ said.

Another ruling that went our way, because of a righteous judge, came appropriately on July 4. A federal judge prohibited Biden administration officials from communicating with social media platforms about "protected speech," a ruling emerging from litigation originally filed by former Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, now a senator.

The ruling, by Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, granted a temporary injunction barring numerous federal agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, from contacting 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."

It was the most sweeping rebuke of Big Tech and Big Government to date.

The litigation was filed last year by Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry. It alleges the federal government colluded with social media companies like Twitter and Facebook to suppress the freedom of speech.

Doughty, a Trump-appointed judge, has not issued a final ruling but wrote that plaintiffs "have produced evidence of a massive effort by defendants, from the White House to federal agencies, to suppress speech based on its content." Schmitt, who was elected to the U.S. Senate in November, celebrated the injunction on Twitter, calling it a "big win for the First Amendment on this Independence Day."

While Missouri and Louisiana filed the case, over the last year a number of additional plaintiffs were added who have run into issues with social media companies for spreading misinformation online.

The Biden administration has led "the largest speech censorship operation in recent history by working with social media companies to suppress and censor information later acknowledged as truthful," Schmitt told the House Weaponization Committee in March.

The suit, filed in May 2022, is described by the plaintiffs as "the most important free speech lawsuit of this generation."

The lawsuit alleges that coordination between the feds and Big Tech led to the suppression and censorship of truthful information "on a scale never before seen" using examples of the COVID lab-leak theory, information about COVID vaccinations, Hunter Biden's laptop and more.

Yes, our position in the "once free press" has been that precarious and that strange and much of a nightmare for too long.

What's become of the news business is a catastrophe. That includes newspapers and online sources of news. "Fake news" replaced real news. It's a real tragedy.

It's practically incomparable what happened to my industry. A few years ago, we were winning. And then what happened? Big Tech went rogue. Nobody noticed. To be valid, you had to drink the Kool-Aid. It was not just Facebook; it was Google. They became the arbiter of online news. Instantly, they became the enforcer on elections. We at WND got the following notice – unlike anyone had seen before: "We do not allow content that: makes claims that are demonstrably false and could significantly undermine participation or trust in an electoral or democratic process."

Read each word in context. Google dropped a huge nuclear bomb on WND by permanently demonetizing us. What possessed them to do it after so many years? When Google demonetized WND, the world's second-wealthiest company finally told us what they believed in. They believed in (s)elections – like Joe Biden did. For that they throttled our traffic, advertising revenue and search accessibility. In other words, Google tried to drive us completely out of business.

In addition, Google scolded on the record: "We do not allow content that: incites hatred against, promotes discrimination of, or disparages an individual or group on the basis of their race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, age, nationality, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or other characteristic that is associated with systemic discrimination or marginalization." They put it in WRITING!

And last but not least, there was one more thing Google was not allowing: "We do not allow content that: promotes harmful health claims, or relates to a current, major health crisis and contradicts authoritative scientific consensus."

When did the tough and crazy times in America begin? They followed Joe Biden's immaculate election – lest anyone dare not "trust in an electoral or democratic process."

Big Tech and Big Government remain dangerously large and powerful, but Judge Doughty's injunction offers hope that the kind of tyranny our founders rejected 247 years ago can still be combatted and, perhaps, ultimately defeated.

I pray that America is not betrayed again. We cannot afford it – not WND and not America.

The post Finally! Welcome to the fight against Big Gov't and Big Tech! appeared first on WND.