I’m told the White House gets told to STFU all the time, this is nothing special
https://twitter.com/alx/status/1678472272334446592?s=20
The government sought to stay the injunction, but then couldn't cite any examples of the "grave harm" they allege the ruling will cause. The government is just like the Tug leftards, devoid of examples, just a wad of feelings.
https://ace.mu.nu/
Judge Denies Biden Administration's Motion to Stay His Injunction, Which Prohibits Biden's Censors From Contacting Social Media Companies to Urge or Pressure Them Into Censoring Protected Speech
—Lamont the Big Dummy
Boy when you put it like that, it's hard to see how the Biden Administration isn't just demanding the right to censor enemies' speech.
=====
Defendants now seek to stay the preliminary injunction, claiming that the injunction "may" cause "grave harm" by "prevent[ing] the Government from engaging in a vast range of lawful and responsible conduct." Doc. 297-1, at 1. But, after months of searching on this very issue, Defendants do not identify a single specific example of supposedly "grave harm" that the injunction might cause, or a single specific example of "lawful and responsible" government conduct that the injunction prevents. See id. at 1-6. By its plain terms, the injunction permits Defendants to engage in the full range of permissible Government speech and conduct--such as "(1) informing social-media companies of postings involving criminal activity or criminal conspiracies;" "(2) contacting and/or notifying social-media companies of national security threats, extortion, or other threats posted on its platform;" "(3) contacting and/or notifying social- media companies about criminal efforts to suppress voting, to provide illegal campaign contributions, of cyber-attacks against election infrastructure, or foreign attempts to influence elections;" "(4) informing social-media companies of threats that threaten the public safety or security of the United States;" and "(5) exercising permissible public government speech promoting government policies or views on matters of public concern," among others. Doc. 294,
at 5-6.
In the face of these clear and specific authorizations, Defendants' conclusory speculative assertion of "grave harm" that the injunction "may be read" to cause, Doc. 297-1, at 1--devoid of any specific examples or evidence of such harm--does not warrant an extraordinary stay.[/b]