Do you have a significant example?
en.m.wikipedia.org
In his 155-page ruling, Doughty wrote: "The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition. Opposition to [COLOR=var(--color-progressive)]COVID-19 vaccines[/COLOR]; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the [COLOR=var(--color-progressive)]lab-leak theory of COVID-19[/COLOR]; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden's policies; statements that the [COLOR=var(--color-progressive)]Hunter Biden laptop story[/COLOR] was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed. It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature. This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of [COLOR=var(--color-progressive)]viewpoint discrimination[/COLOR] of political speech. American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country."[COLOR=var(--color-progressive)][15]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murthy_v._Missouri#cite_note-15[/COLOR] He continued: "If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States' history. The plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the government has used its power to silence the opposition."[COLOR=var(--color-progressive)][14]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murthy_v._Missouri#cite_note-nytimes_doughty-14[/COLOR]
I'd say that qualifies....perhaps also this...
www.dailywire.com
The CIA shouldn't be doing that stuff....framing candidates for collusion with Russia in attempt to help Hillary win.
These are just two examples of course, and the first one this administration tried to legitimize by creating a "Ministry
Of Truth" that would overtly do all the illegal things they were doing covertly in the lawsuit above. I know that the mainstream media's attempt to equivocate on the "Twitter Files" hearings was pointing out Trump's request to get a post from Chrissy Teigan removed was successful and therefore "everyone was doing it" (which is true, most elected officials requested certain posts about them that were insulting/harassment in violation of TOS be removed) is another example of just how much the mainstream left wing outlets cover for Biden. I'm sure you'll agree there's a massive difference between elected officials requesting posts be removed because....
A. They violate existing TOS and would arguably be removed for anyone on the social media platform, if I recall correctly, Chrissy Teigan's post was simply a string of insults and swear words.
And...
B. They disagree with a narrative that the government or federal administration is trying to push like, for one example, the idea that Covid came from a wet market or, for another example, there is a crisis at the border involving mass human trafficking and exploitation.....or even that Biden's lack of campaign appearances are connected to his declining cognitive abilities....or that there's real need for children to be vaccinated since so few die after contracting covid and the vaccines effectiveness wears off mere months.
Those are wildly different types of posts for the government to request the platform remove. Imagine if Trump said that the moon was made of cheese and began demanding anyone who posted in disagreement (especially if they had facts to support their disagreement) have their posts removed or even be banned from the platform while simultaneously telling these social media companies that should they fail to moderate their content in accordance with government wishes, regulations and threats of lawsuits were in their future.
The first example may be petty but it's not really on the level of illegality. The second example (example B) has long since been ruled as illegal for the government to do as it's essentially just a 1st amendment violation by proxy (SCOTUS has longstanding rulings against the government doing this to the press for example...for obvious reasons) and when done on the scale which the Democratic Party (though the Republicans undoubtedly participated in this to some extent) and Biden administration in particular have done....I think we can agree that this would constitute "election interference"....right?
I mean, if a few Russian trolls writing fake news stories and spreading rumors online through Facebook groups were considered election interference....it's hard to imagine what sort of viewpoint excuses this sort of disinformation and misinformation spreading by our own government, press, and tech companies as something less than election interference.
I hope that explains it well enough but if you want specific examples I can provide those as well. I imagine if you only read left wing sources, this is all pretty unbelievable but the evidence is vast and the case is sitting before the SCOTUS. If I remember correctly, I think the government pressed its own case involving these social media companies in order to limit its own liability in this case or outright prevent tech companies from having any responsibility for what is said on their public platforms as a hail mart attempt to legalize the pressure they exerted on the companies themselves.
Thank goodness for the separation of powers and lifelong SCOTUS appointments....right? Otherwise the federal government could try to pressure the SCOTUS with threats of investigations or have justices removed over ethical complaints, etc.
