https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.293.0.pdf

155 pages of fun. Small sample:

In this case, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants suppressed conservative-leaning free speech,
such as: (1) suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the 2020 Presidential election; (2)
suppressing speech about the lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origin; (3) suppressing speech about
the efficiency of masks and COVID-19 lockdowns; (4) suppressing speech about the efficiency of
COVID-19 vaccines; (5) suppressing speech about election integrity in the 2020 presidential
election; (6) suppressing speech about the security of voting by mail; (7) suppressing parody
content about Defendants; (8) suppressing negative posts about the economy; and (9) suppressing
negative posts about President Biden.

All of which turned out to be true - both in the sense that speech was suppressed, and, in the sense that speech did not deserve suppression since the Party Line was in fact a lie.

The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has
used its power to silence the opposition. Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to
COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition
to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the
Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in
power. All were suppressed...a perfect example
of viewpoint discrimination of political speech. American citizens have the right to engage in free
debate about the significant issues affecting the country.
Although this case is still relatively young, and at this stage the Court is only examining it
in terms of Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, the evidence produced thus far depicts
an almost dystopian scenario.