Would that be some article you didn't link to? Because I read the substack piece, and it had a lot of claims and no evidence. There were a few lawyer's canards and outright lies. For example, unlike the claims of the quote below, Judge Daugherty gave on indication that any bad behavior had happened in his opinion (which I also skimmed).Thats exactly what the article you didn't read is talking about. Based on the ruling so far and the evidence they have it appears they would disagree with you.
Not only have the plaintiffs established standing to sue and sufficiently alleged that federal coercion is responsible for the suppression of their comments on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and YouTube, but it's likely to keep happening without intervention, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty wrote in a 77-page ruling that clears the way for a trial.
There was no support for "sufficiently alleged", nor for "keep happening", in the ruling. Daugherty repeated the plaintiff's claims at the start, as seems to be customary, but did not offer support.
I'm sure the plaintiff's lawyers would disagree with me. They are being paid to do so.