‘This Is the Government Colluding With Big Tech’AG Jeff Landry on the First Amendment Lawsuits He’s Leading – The Epoch Times

What we found in what the whistleblowers put out was that the government was actually engagedand the White Housein directly communicating with Big Tech on stories and information that they either wanted suppressed or put out, says Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry.

One of the most assertive attorney generals in the country, Landry has filed a number of lawsuits against the Biden administration over Big Tech censorship, the Biden administrations Disinformation Governance Board, COVID mandates, illegal immigration, and election integrity.

Subscribe to the American Thought Leaders newsletter so you never miss an episode.

** Click the Save button below the video to access it later on My List.

Jan Jekielek:

Attorney General Jeff Landry, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

Thank you for having me here today.

Mr. Jekielek:

I want to go back to May of this year, where you signed on with 19 different attorney generals, about the establishment of this Disinformation Board, what some people call a Ministry of Truth, in the U.S. government. You sent a letter saying, This kind of board cant stand. This is a big issue, correct? I want to get your thoughts on why this was so important to you back then.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

Its extremely important. Its extremely troublesome when you think about the federal government creating an agency called the Disinformation Board. Thats prima facie violation of the First Amendment. Think about it. This is the government going to filter information to the American people. They are basically going to ensure that some information gets out to the American people and some information doesnt get out.

Of course, that is exactly why the First Amendment was established under our Bill of Rights. Thats exactly the kind of conduct the founders of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights wanted to prevent. They did not want the government censoring information to citizens.

Mr. Jekielek:

Theres a lot of disinformation out there. Everyone will certainly agree on that these days. So what do we do about that?

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

Right. But theres also disinformation on a playground. The greatness about America was the fact that information could flow freely between people. The citizenry had the ability to ascertain the truth from fiction, and then come up with their own opinion, and their own decisions based upon that information. Recently, somewhere down the line the government has decided, Theres some information maybe we dont want the public to know. Thats concerning, especially when that information ends up being correct.

Thats why you saw attorney generals, like myself, go right after the government the minute they announced this, saying, That is an incorrect use of federal authority.

Mr. Jekielek:

Not too long after, you and Attorney General Schmidt in Missouri decided to launch a lawsuit looking at Big Tech and government colluding to censor. This was 19 attorney generals. Now there are only two. Why is that?

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

That lawsuit was instituted within 24 hours of that letter. General Schmidt and I believe that when the government coerces a private actor to do something, or to engage in conduct which the government is prevented from doing, that would be a violation of your constitutional rights. Like with censoring speech, if the government is actually censoring the speech, that is the government violating your First Amendment rights.

This was our theory. If the government either coerces or works with Big Tech and says to Big Tech, We want you to censor this information, and then Big Tech does that, then guess what? Big Tech now becomes a government actor and is subject to violating citizens constitutional rights. That was the legal theory that we had in play.

We werent good at convincing everybody at the time we filed that particular suit. So, Eric and I filed it in Louisiana. Not long after that, the whistleblower information came out.

Mr. Jekielek:

It was not surprising to anyone in a way, but very surprising that it was written in such intricate terms. Please tell me about that.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

It was an affirmation of what we believed. That happened some 3, 4, 5 weeks after the lawsuit was filed. We see the whistleblowers come out and basically lay out for the American people some of the theories that we had. They said, They are actually censoring information. This is the government colluding with Big Tech and telling them this is the information we want you to put out and this is the information we want you to suppress, which was the basis for our lawsuit. So, it was surprising to many, but it was affirming to us.

Mr. Jekielek:

Lets go back a little bit. What is the substance of the lawsuit? Please explain it to me.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

Lets think about it in a criminal context. We all are very familiar with Fourth Amendment search and seizure. We all know that the police cant barge into your home to search for things. They have to have reasonable belief that something in your home is evidence that would lead to a crime.

Then, as part of due process, they have to go to a judge and say, Judge, under these conditions, this is the information we have. The the judge says, Okay. This is enough for a warrant to be granted. Thats a Fourth Amendment protection.

The police cant say, We dont want to go through all of that. We dont want to go to a judge. Well get your neighbor to go into your house, because we know that you invite your neighbor into your house. We will work with that neighbor and them exactly what we are looking for. We will tell them what to find, and then come back and tell us if its in your house.

That is illegal too. That is the government short-circuiting the Fourth Amendment. Its the same thing with speech, and thats what our lawsuit says. Imagine the government says, We really would like to suppress this information, or Dr. Fauci says, We dont want the American people to think that there are any therapeutic remedies that could suppress the COVID virus. But I know that as a government actor, I cant go out there saying dont print this, but print that. I cant do that because Im a government actor.

He also cant go to the press and coerce them to do that, because then they become a government actor as well. Thats what the suit says. Again, if we find this to be true, then those platforms will be liable for violating citizens rights.

Mr. Jekielek:

Okay. What examples did you give? Where were the specific areas? You suggested one area, a lot of things around COVID.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

What we found, and what the whistleblowers found, was that the government and the White House were actually directly communicating with Big Tech on stories and information that they either wanted to promote or to have suppressed.

Those are the things that we are going to find. We have a treasure trove of information that is going to come out shortly. The good news is, last week, the judge in our case granted our motion for discovery, so the subpoenas have gone out. Theyre being served. Dr. Fauci got served, along with other members of the Presidents cabinet. They have to send us the communications between them and the platforms, We believe we will find communications telling them what they should and shouldnt put out, and what what they should amplify and what they should suppress.

Mr. Jekielek:

But its not only COVID-related issues that you were looking at in this lawsuit, correct?

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

No, its not only those issues. It could be in the realm of anything. Think about it in the realm of the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop, and in Russiagate with the dossier. What we are seeing is a very disturbing pattern of the government taking information thats fictitious and then making it a fact. Then, they try to hide the cover of that false story from the American people. They use the social media platforms and the power of these Big Tech companies to limit the information the American people are getting.

Again, it doesnt just have to be COVID-related. Think about it, the federal government spied on a presidential campaign. Just that, in and of itself, is problematic. The basis for which they did so was a false document, which is the dossier. Again, when the evidence of that dossier being fictitious tried to come out, what would happen? That information was suppressed. So, this plays into all of those particular scenarios.

Mr. Jekielek:

Or like, as you said, the Hunter Biden laptop. Its highly topical right now.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

Right. Senator Grassleys letter yesterday was shocking. Why? Because it was further affirmation that people inside the United States Department of Justice, and inside the FBI, specifically downplayed evidence that was in front of their face in order to tilt an election. Thats the kind of thing that happens in despotic countries, in socialist countries, and in communist countries. Thats not the kind of conduct thats supposed to happen here in this country, and certainly not inside the halls of the very institutions we rely on to uphold justice, like the United States Department of Justice.

I grew up just having such great respect for the FBI. They were the premier law enforcement agency out there. Why? Because they dispensed justice and they did their investigations in a very fair manner, by not being partisan, and not being political. Yet, as were peeling back the layers of this onion over the last six to seven years, were finding that there may be people inside of those institutions that dont subscribe to the principles those institutions were built upon. Thats problematic for the country, and for democracy.

Mr. Jekielek:

Lets switch gears now. You have a very interesting backstory. You went to law school at age 30, which is a very unusual thing. And this was after you could have just retired. You chose to go to law school of all things. Thats not a typical path. Please tell me about your background.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

I tell people that Im a slow learner. I had an interesting background growing up in a small town in southern Louisiana. I accomplished a lot because I grew up with ADD and no medication.

I was always busy. When I was in college, I started a business. That business flourished, and I had an opportunity to sell the business with a friend of mine. Then I said, Well, what am I going to do with some of that money? I was still single at the time. I said, You know what? My grandfather had always said that I should have gone to law school, so Im going to law school. So at 30, I went to law school, and then afterwards I got married. It was a big turning point in my life. After my wife stayed with me through law school, I said, Well, I better marry her.

So yes, I went to law school a bit later in life. But it was after I had gotten my undergraduate degree, and after I had run a business, and after I had worked that entire time. All of those things gave me a different perspective from the average person who goes to college, gets an undergrad, goes to law school and then becomes a lawyer. I got to have some real life experience in the business sectorcreating jobs, having a payroll, making insurance payments, and dealing with lawsuits as both a plaintiff and a defendant. So it was an interesting path.

Mr. Jekielek:

Was it your grandfather that said that you should have gone to law school? What really motivated you, aside from that inspiration from family? Its a big decision.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

It is. I thought about it. I weighed whether I was going to get an MBA or a law degree. I knew that I liked history. Im a big history buff and Ive always been interested in the Constitution and in law. So, I decided this was the direction I wanted to take.

In all honesty, I went to law school, but never intended to practice law. Yes. In fact, my wife will tease you and tell you that when I got out of law school I was ready to go back into business. She said, Youre not going to take the bar? And I replied, No. I really wasnt planning taking the bar. Shes the one who forced me to take the bar. She is the reason Im practicing law today.

Mr. Jekielek:

Thats fascinating. You passed the bar and then you actually decided to work in the field, now that you had the credentials? Whats going on at that time?

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

I passed the bar, and I had a friend of mine say, Why dont you come and do some corporate law work? Because of my business background, they felt that I had something to offer the firm. So, I did some of that work.

I then ran for the Louisiana state senate and lost. I said, Okay, that gets the politics out of me. But then I decided to run for Congress in 2010.

I came in with that big class of 2010, back when the country was really starting to change. I remember one of the things that drove me to run for Congress was the fact that we were engaged in the wars in the Middle East. I remember the Obama administration refusing to send the required number of troops to the Middle East that the joint chiefs had recommended at the time. As a veteran, that kind of insulted me. So I said, You know what? I want to run for Congress.

Then, I went to Congress, so my legal career was short. I went from practicing law to writing law and being a congressman, and after that, Attorney General of Louisiana.

Mr. Jekielek:

I want to talk about the bigger picture. You talked about this inherent prima facie threat around disinformation boards. Right now, theres much less appreciation of the value of freedom of speech than there once was. Once, it was sacrosanct. Now people are talking about balancing these things.

Part of the reason is, we have this technology where you can create big narratives of information and they can change in a moments notice. The information landscape has changed a lot. What people are arguing is that new rules are required to balance these capabilities with freedom. We wouldnt want the wrong information to capture everyones mind in an instant. There is a threat of things like that, and it has happened.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

There used to be a thing called journalistic integrity. One of the things I appreciate about The Epoch Times is that it has risen above the fray, and brought back journalistic integrity. Journalism was about writing a story based on facts and letting the reader come up with an opinion. Thats what journalism was about. Thats what the press was about. Hey, let me give you all of the facts, and then you come to your own conclusion. Thats freedom. Thats why we wanted the freedom of the press.

Unfortunately, with the expansion of the internet and the growth of just a handful of players, the Big Tech platforms have amassed so much data and so much information.

We used to have a physical public square. And in that physical public square, the press was welcome and there was freedom there. There was also the freedom of people to debate and to say things in that physical public square. What the internet created was a virtual public square, which was great. We said, Oh, this is even better. This was going to be a great marketplace for ideas. It was going to connect more people. It was going to expand the physical public square by bringing more people to it. If you wanted to go and talk in New York, now you could do it through the internet, and not have to travel all the way to New York.

Unfortunately, what happened was that the virtual public square is now controlled by just a handful of private corporationsBig Tech, as weve labeled them. Instead of the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment being the gateway of that information in the physical public square, Big Tech now controls what goes in and out of the virtual public square.

Thats where Americans are finding a lot of anxiety and frustration. When the government joins in with them, you are now absolutely violating the First Amendment when it comes to information.

Thats where we are right now. What has happened is a collision of antitrust law, which is the monopolistic power of Big Tech, and what people have come to believe and trust and appreciate about the First Amendment.

The First Amendment is a great and important thing. You normally label the most important thing as number one. When you think about whats in the First Amendment, it is some of the most sacrosanct important things that hold the fabric of America togetherthe freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, and the freedom of assembly. Those are packed into the First Amendment.

Mr. Jekielek:

In the past, there were actually a lot fewer big media. You would have NBC, CBS, and ABC. There were just a few big media outlets. Of course, there was a ton of local media that would operate in local markets. This is before the internet. It was before this democratization of information, which is what the promise of the internet was all about.

So these big media started to lose market power, but also the power to shape ideas.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

Correct.

Mr. Jekielek:

How much of this is just an attempt to reestablish the ability to create narratives like they may have had before? The internet opened things up very widely for all these new, disruptive players, like us, for example.

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

Lets go back even further. I would guess that at the time the printing press was invented, and as the expansion of the printing press occurred, there was some disruption in the flow of communication. It probably scared some people who were in power. Then, of course, with the printing press came books and written literature. Then, it just kept developing.

Then, we get radio, and then, we get television. All of those things were disruptive in the media sense. Sure, there is a group out there that is certainly concerned about losing their influence. Maybe thats what you are alluding to, their ability to influence and to shape American perception.

But again, lets think about where they sit inside of the government regulatory structure. At the time, when those big media outlets came out, the government said, Were going to fit them in as a utility. And they put them inside of a pretty strict regulatory structure.

Think about that. We dont think about it, because weve come to accept it, but they were packaged inside of government oversight. But the government never went in and said, Were going to tell you what you can and cant say. We just said, You have to allow everyone to have an opportunity.

Think about political advertisements on TV, or on radio. When I buy a political advertisement, those stations have to give me an affidavit telling me that they ran those ads, and they have to offer my opponent the same amount of time at the same price.

So, the internet comes out and the government does nothing. They let these corporations just buy up and gobble up and amass so much power that theyre almost bigger than the government, which again brings us back to our earlier conversation. It brings us back to the Sherman Antitrust Act. It was designed to ensure that no person or corporation got more power than the government, because once you amass more power than the government, then you have more power than the people. In America, the government is the people, or its supposed to be.

Mr. Jekielek:

Where did things go wrong?

Attorney General Jeff Landry:

Things went wrong when we got this laissez-faire position on the Sherman Act. After the big trust-busters, there was a different take on the Sherman Act in the Supreme Court in the 1960s. Thats a whole other debate. When the internet came in, Section 230 proved to be problematic. I dont think the government reacted fast enough. Technology was moving so fast that the governments ability to reign it in was lacking. It caught them flat footed, and now were playing catch-up.

Its unfortunate, because now, at a time when we need the government to act, were so polarized, and the government is paralyzed. So, as the government stays paralyzed, the only people on the top are the Big Tech platforms. So, who is shaping ideas?

Go here to read the rest:

'This Is the Government Colluding With Big Tech'AG Jeff Landry on the First Amendment Lawsuits He's Leading - The Epoch Times