Edit: Correction to the title changing Biden to Missouri to reflect the correct parties

In what is arguably the most consequential 1st Amendment lawsuit of our lifetimes, the Supreme Court just heard oral arguments regarding whether to uphold the preliminary injunction imposed on the federal government by Judge Doughty back on July 4th 2023, which bars them from communicating with social media companies for the purpose of censoring American’s speech online.

The context surrounding this case is the mass censorship of speech on social media platforms, prompted by what the Feds deem as “harmful” mis, dis, and mal-information. Plaintiffs have argued that the government has overstepped their Constitutional authority by communicating with platforms through backdoor access they were given in the form of an email portal where they could request the take down of various accounts, posts, and groups, amongst other things.

Right out of the gate, I must say that I am deeply concerned after listening to the hearings. Although, I am not entirely hopeless that SCOTUS will decide in favor of the plaintiffs.

If they do, we can rest assured the Feds will not be able to continue censoring Americans’s constitutionally protected speech while this suit plays out. If they don’t, the censorship will persist until its conclusion which would likely be years from now.

I don’t want to spend too much time breaking down every single little detail from the hearing, but there are some key points I want to make, and some key statements I want to highlight.

If you’d like to listen to the full hearing, I embedded the audio at the top of this article for your convenience.

The Petitioners

To start, Mr. Fletcher, the Fed’s lawyer, clearly stated that the government may not use coercive threats to suppress speech but that they are entitled to speak for themselves by, “informing, persuading, or criticizing private speakers.”

He argued that the plaintiffs do not have standing in this case because they have failed to demonstrate an imminent threat that the government will cause platforms to moderate their posts in particular. He suggested to the court that they should affirm the government would have only crossed the threshold for 1st Amendment violations and coercion if their actions convey a threat of adverse action.

One component of his argument was hinged on the concept of “traceability” where he suggests that the respondents failed to establish that the specific actions taken by the petitioners had actually caused social media platforms to take action on their behalf, resulting in the respondent’s speech being curtailed. This would set the stage for whether or not the private actions taken by social media platforms could then be considered State Action, as the 1st Amendment only applies to the government.

Justice Alito pushed back on Mr. Fletcher suggesting that SCOTUS usually does not reverse findings of fact that have been endorsed by two lower courts. In this case, the District court and the 5th Circuit courts had both affirmed the findings of fact that injury was traceable to the government’s actions.

The key points of contention Mr. Fletcher voiced was that the findings of fact that would potentially be considered unconstitutional actions are mere “characterizations” rather than historical fact, and findings that are premised on erroneous legal standards.

Justice Gorsuch also made a point to question Mr. Fletcher on whether the respondents could prove that their injury would be remedied “to some extent”, if that would be enough to justify the injunction. Mr. Fletcher conceded this point saying,

Correct. So, if they're likely to face moderation on 10 posts and an injunction against the government would make it eight, that's enough.

Justice Alito chimed in to lay out what he found when reading emails between the Feds and the social media platforms, characterizing these exchanges as unusual. He noted that the Feds were referring to social media companies as their “partners” and that they were “on the same team”. He also noted that when they were not complying with their demands, they got frustrated and cussed them out in the email exchanges.

The Respondents

Mr. Aguinaga, the respondent’s lawyer, started off his arguments by saying that the 20,000-page record was “stunning”, and that it revealed “unrelenting pressure” by government to coerce platforms into suppressing the speech of millions of Americans. He noted how the district court had reviewed the record for an entire year before handing down their ruling, which concluded that this is arguably one of the most massive attacks on free speech in America’s history.

He also noted how considering the pressure put on them by the Feds, social media platforms had reluctantly acted outside of their terms of service to comply with their demands, even stating in an internal email that they shouldn’t have done so, but did because they were under such pressure.

Immediately, Justice Thomas posed the question as to whether or not they were arguing that coercion was the necessary bar for establishing 1st Amendment violations. Mr. Aguinaga responded that they did not need to go as far as coercion to show that injury occurred as a result of the governments actions, rather mere encouragement would be enough, citing this court’s decision in the Norwood case, which concluded that,

the government cannot induce, encourage, and promote private actors to do directly what the government can't itself do directly.

Through and through, this was the position held by the respondent’s lawyer — that the government was compelling, persuading, and possibly coercing the private actors (social media companies) to suppress freedom of speech, something the government is not permitted to do.

There was significant pushback from Justice Sotomayor who suggested that Mr. Aguinaga was “confusing legal doctrine” in this instance, and that social media companies have every right to choose to remove this speech on their own had the government not compelled them to do so.

The pushback from Mr. Aguinaga was that in many instances, the platforms wouldn’t have removed content the Feds wanted them to because it was outside the scope of their terms of service.

Justice Jackson then pushed back suggesting that the test for 1st Amendment violations lies in whether the government has a “compelling interest” in suppressing speech.

Justice Kagan chimed in questioning whether or not he believed the law enforcement agencies should be able to inform platforms that they are hosting terrorist or criminal activity on their platform. Mr. Aguinaga replied that such activity is not protected speech, which she then countered that some of their speech may still be protected.

She then posed the hypothetical of whether the government should be able to inform platforms of harmful content they may be hosting and what harms they believe are being done by them hosting it. She asked whether they should be able to do so. His response was effectively that they have every right to inform them. However, they would be treading into unconstitutional territory if they asked them to take action against such content, especially if it’s not in alignment with their own policies or terms of service.

At one point, Justice Jackson suggested that the government does in fact have the power to encourage, or even coerce the suppression of speech if the government has a compelling interest in doing so. One example she cited was the government’s interest in the suppression of classified information that may have been published.

Mr. Aguinaga suggested that the bully pulpit could be used to coerce specific behaviors but not the suppression of third party speech.

After Justice Jackson posed a hypothetical about kids being exposed to content that directed them to jump out of windows at increasing heights and the harms that could cause, Justice Alito chimed in to reaffirm the Respondent’s arguments.

Well, Mr. Aguinaga, I think some of your most recent colloquy with my colleagues have gotten off into questions that I didn't take it from your brief we -- you think we actually need to decide in this case. So I thought your principal argument was that whatever coercion means, it -- what happened here is sufficient and that coercion doesn't mean only -- it doesn't apply only when the government says do this, and if you don't do this, there are going to be legal consequences when it says that in this same breath, but that it's a more flexible standard and you have to take into account the whole course of the relationship regarding this matter.

To which Mr. Aguinaga responded that this was correct, and that there is a 20,000-page record stemming from limited discovery that shows the government repeatedly going back to platforms, pressuring them to change their policies and do more censoring.

One final point I found worth nothing was a statement by Justice Jackson, where she suggested that the government has, in her mind, a duty to protect the citizens of this country, and that Mr. Aguinaga was arguing the government has no right to encourage or pressure platforms to take down harmful content.

She said,

So my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods. I mean, what would — what would you have the government do?

Mr. Aguinaga essentially reaffirmed his original stance, which was that the government only has the authority to inform them, ask for the promotion of their own view points, but does not have the constitutional authority to persuade or coerce them to censor speech.

My thoughts

Ultimately, I am concerned that we will see an unfavorable ruling to the respondents complaints.

The liberal Justices, as well as Justice Barret, seemed to have significant adversarial concerns over the arguments being made by the respondents. It seemed they had little insight into the actual findings of fact. However, that’s largely speculation.

It seemed pretty clear that the conservative justices, especially Justice Alito and Gorsuch, had a much better understanding of the arguments being made, and the actual findings of fact.

That being said, I am still somewhat hopeful that we could see the injunction being upheld, as it was much more narrow in its scope by the time it reached SCOTUS, and had carve-outs for the various instances where the government would in fact have a “compelling interest” in suppressing various types of speech.

This injunction was temporarily stayed by SCOTUS, meaning the injunction is NOT currently in effect.

The update was highlighted by Tracy Beanz on X today where she said,

The hearing regarding the temporary injunction which would halt the government from communicating with social media companies on a myriad of topics will be held March 18, 2024. It’s important to note that SCOTUS isn’t hearing the case itself, but arguments on the injunction, which was affirmed and upheld by the 5th circuit…twice.

She has some of the most comprehensive coverage of this case to date.

Subscribe now

Share

In a post on 𝕏 made by Tracy Beanz, she reported that conservative States had filed a Brief of Amicus Curiae, voicing their support for the temporary injunction Judge Doughty granted to the Plaintiffs.

This temporary injunction would block the federal government and big tech companies from colluding to censor American’s protected speech. The Defendants (the Feds) have appealed this injunction, effectively arguing they should be allowed to censor Americans.

Seven States jointly file Amicus Brief

Seven States filed a 35-page Amicus Brief where they argued for the appeals court to uphold the injunction.

Amicus briefs are legal briefs filed in appellate courts by individuals or groups who are not directly involved in a legal case, but have expertise or insight to offer a court to assist in making its decision. They are submitted in a specific case under review and show the court that its final decision will impact people other than the parties directly involved.

In addition to the States that are covered in this article, Florida has also filed their own brief. Not only that, but Judicial Watch has now filed a brief on behalf of Rep. Jim Jordan and eleven members of the Judiciary Committee and the Select Committee on Weaponization of Government.

They condemned the actions of the executive branch under Biden’s leadership, and asserted they are not only an injured party in the Missouri v Biden lawsuit, but that they have standing to defend the Rights of their citizens.

Here are the states as listed in the filing:

• South Carolina

• Montana

• Iowa

• Kansas

• Nebraska

• Idaho

• Utah

Interests, Injuries, and Arguments

The brief asserts that each state was injured in at least two ways.

In the Interests of Amici Curiae section, the States assert that the censorship of posts due to pressure from the federal government violated their citizen’s and government official’s 1st Amendment Rights.

Social media platforms provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard, and they enable citizens to petition their elected representatives and other-wise engage with them in a direct manner.

The other asserts that the State’s quasi-sovereign interest, of hearing and engaging with the opinions of their citizens on matters of enormous public interest, is being undermined.

Quasi-Sovereign means any entity fully guaranteed by a sovereign or more than 50% directly or indirectly owned by a Sovereign.

The rights of speech and petition are vital to the democratic process for citizens and government officials alike- because they foster the public exchange of ideas that is integral to deliberative democracy. Without that robust exchange of ideas, deliberative democracy, and all its attendant benefits, will wither and die.

The States argue they are also entitled to a redress of grievances under Article III injuries, thus making the outcome of this trial pertinent to the States quasi-sovereignty, and their citizen’s Constitutional Rights.

By this stage in the case (even with limited-discovery), the courts have shown that federal officials conducted and engaged in a years-long censorship campaign with regards to Covid-19, Covid-19 vaccines, election integrity, and other highly contested issues.

It’s been established that the White House, and other entities stemming from the Executive Branch called for the censorship of public officials, medical professionals, journalists, and American citizens speech when they expressed disfavored viewpoints. This is the foundation for their argument suggesting the States have standing per Constitutional Rights violations.

Share

Article III and how it pertains to this case

Article III, Section 2, Clause 1:

“The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases… arising under this Constitution… the Laws of the United States… to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; …to all Cases affecting and between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of different States… and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”

What this Article of the Constitution does is allows for the Judicial Power of a Federal Court to "serve to prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches."

According to the information held at constitution.congress.gov, the Supreme Court has previously recognized certain prudential limitations on the exercise of federal courts’ jurisdiction, which, although lacking constitutional status, may nonetheless result in a courts’ refusal to hear a case:

1. When the litigant seeks to assert the rights of third parties not before the court.

2. When the litigant seeks redress for a generalized grievance widely shared by a large number of citizens.

3. When the litigant challenges government action or inaction and its asserted interests do not fall within the zone of interests arguably protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional provision underlying its claims.

However, the analysis goes on to state that “in recent years, the Court has questioned the basis of the doctrine of prudential standing. The Court has suggested that the bar on generalized grievances is a constitutional (and not prudential) requirement.”

In regards to standing related to well-established actions of the Federal Government in the Missouri v Biden Lawsuit, the States argue they have suffered concrete and particularized Article III injuries when their own social-media posts were censored due to federal pressure on social media platforms.

In one instance, the Louisiana Department of Justice shared video footage on YouTube that criticized mask mandates and COVID-19 measures, and the video was removed in August 2021 immediately following Defendants' advocacy for COVID related misinformation censorship.

Standing on behalf of citizens due to quasi-sovereign interests

Additional arguments made by the States suggested censoring speech of their citizens on social media is directly related to their quasi-sovereign interest. But, what does this mean?

It’s arguing that it is of utmost importance for government entities to have their “finger on the pulse” of public opinion regarding issues related to public interest. One mechanism used to gauge where their constituents stand on certain issues, is social media platforms.

The thought process is, that if the Federal Government removes content, or suspends users without constitutional grounds to do so, it directly hinders the State’s ability to discern public opinion — such opinions being tantamount to a function democracy. This would in-turn lower the quality of representation the general public is receiving due to the State’s subsequent lack of insight and ability to take action on behalf of their constituents interests.

Essentially, in this instance, both the State and its citizens will have interests in a favorable ruling. For the State to have standing in federal court, it must have separate interests that pertain to its quasi-sovereignty.

However, for the State to assert standing over its citizen’s interests, it must have a quasi-sovereign interest in protecting whatever constitutionally protected activity is being subverted. They believe they meet this criteria.

For these reasons, the States argue that they in-fact have standing in this lawsuit, and they conclude that the court should deny the Defendant’s appeal.

In a memorandum order issued at 4 pm July 24, 2023, Judge Doughty grants the RFK Jr. Motion to Consolidate.

Judge Doughty determined that since there was no opposition from the Plaintiff States, despite the individuals opposing, consolidating the two was more expedient and more economically efficient. He also determined they were similar enough between in nature for it to be them to be adjudicated simultaneously.

The Judge dismissed the opposing plaintiff’s argument stating:

“…this court does not decide cases based on politics, but based on the United States Constitution.”

In the Background section of this ruling, Judge Doughty points to the fact that both law suits filed by their respective plaintiffs, “are suing the same White House employees and federal agencies,” and that the claims are allegations of violations of the First Amendment Free Speech Clause by suppression of speech of social media platforms.

The Appeal of the Emergency Injunction barring communications between the Biden Admin and social media companies still needs to be ruled on. Additional discovery for plaintiffs on the RFK Jr. side will also be required now that he will be joining the suit.

Subscribe now

Plaintiffs, including Dr. Bhattacharya, Dr. Kulldorff, Dr. Kheriaty, and Jill Hines in the Missouri v Biden case, have filed arguments against a motion from Robert F Kennedy Jr. to consolidate his class action lawsuit against the Biden Administration with the case brought by The AG of Missouri. In their response to his motion, they argued it would be burdensome on the current preceeding based on the current status of the case. They argued that due to the appeal and the difference in scope between the two cases, it would be "enormously disruptive." Here is the section found on pages 7 and 8 of their filing:

“As a result, consolidating the two cases would be prejudicial to the Opposing Plaintiffs. Injecting a new set of plaintiffs into the proceedings at this critical juncture, when an injunction has been entered and appealed and the Plaintiffs seek a final ruling on the merits as soon as it may realistically be achieved, would be enormously disruptive—especially when the new plaintiffs have unique standing issues, purport to represent their own class—and seek to address the challenged censorship solely as listeners, not as speakers. Plaintiffs would be forced to adjust their litigation strategy to accommodate a new set of plaintiffs with pending class allegations.”

Later in the filing, the plaintiffs argued that the case they brought against the defendants was intent on vindicating the rights of Americans not to have their own government throw them off of social media for the content of their speech. Additionally, they view the outcome of consolidation to be a conjoining of the RFK Jr. Presidential campaign and the grievances voiced with the Plaintiff's case in the minds of the public.

Concerns this would "taint" the case and shift the case in the public's mind from the focus of law in favor of a "blend of both" political interests and the interests of those challenging the presidential candidate. They clearly state multiple times they believe this would be prejudicial towards them.

In a rather frank declaration concerning the potential consolidation, the Plaintiffs expressed:

"The Court should examine the reality of the situation and realize how untenable and prejudicial such a consolidation would be to Plaintiffs who have already taken great risks in their own scientific, academic, and local communities to bring this suit. Nobody signed up to be the sideshow of a Presidential campaign, and it would be unfair to make them such against their will simply because a member of one of the most powerful political families in the country asked for it."

What seems to be the most compelling point being made to the courts is that the motion to grant this "threatens to end this state of affairs," based on the conflicting positions from various Plaintiffs. The interest of the American people being the focus of Missouri v Biden, in the Plaintiff's opinion, supersedes any potential campaign endeavors sought by the RKF Jr. or his affiliate organizations.

Share

Please like, comment, subscribe, and share this with others! Also, we’ve decided to consolidate the coverage of the lawsuit into its own section, accessible at the HOME page of our publication.

Subscribe now

On July 14th, The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the defendants an administrative stay over Judge Doughty’s Injunction, which prevented communications between the defendants and Tech platforms from stifling free speech. The court, “called for arguments in the case to be scheduled on an expedited basis.”

The stay removed the restrictions, thus allowing the defendants to resume communications to censor American citizens. However, the appeal is being sent to an oral argument merits panel for a determination.

If the appeal is granted, it would be a significant blow to the seemingly iron-clad case the plaintiffs brought forward. If the appeal is denied, the injunction will remain in place.

The argument the defendants made was “the ruling by Doughty is too vague and broad,” thus confusing the defendants, “raising questions about what officials can say in conversations with social media companies.” In a 20 page response, plaintiffs dismissed the assertions by administration lawyers’ assertions.

These are the judge’s words so you can decide whether his ruling also has you, the average American citizen, confused.

“—encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”

Judge Doughty also clarified the definition of protected free speech,” as discussed in the previous update. That clarification stated, “‘Protected free speech’ means speech which is protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution in accordance with the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court.”

“—Defendants argue that the injunction should be stayed because it might interfere with the Government’s ability to continue working with social-media companies to censor Americans’ core political speech on the basis of viewpoint. In other words, the Government seeks a stay of the injunction so that it can continue violating the First Amendment.”

If you enjoyed this work, please consider subscribing and referring new subscribers as well, which can earn you free monthy subs.

On July 6th, the defendants submitted a motion to stay the preliminary injunction, which was a result of the ruling on the 4th of July. This ruling forces the defendants in the lawsuit to stop communications with Big Tech Platforms that would further undermine American’s 1st Amendment rights. The defendants also appealed the ruling in a document which was submitted prior to the motion to stay.

On July 8th, the plaintiffs responded to the request to stay the injunction, which was a 17 page response that suggested:

1. The Injunction Is Not Vague and Imposes No Cognizable Injury on Defendants.

2. Staying the Injunction Would Inflict Irreparable Injury on Plaintiffs.

3. The defendants are unlikely to succeed on merits.

4. The Court Should Again Reject Defendants' Request for an Administrative Stay.

NOTE: there was a corrective document filing which updated the plaintiffs challenge to the defendants motion to stay. Here is the updated 20 page memorandum.

On the 10th of July, Judge Terry Doughty who presides over the Missouri V Biden case, denied the request to stay the preliminary injunction ruling granted on the 4th of July. Judge Doughty also clarified the definition of “protected free speech.”

“Protected free speech” means speech which is protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution in accordance with the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court.

One day after Judge Doughty granted the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction on the Biden Administration and others named in the suit, the Defendant’s lawyers filed an appeal to overturn the ruling which barred them from conducting further censorship or communications intended to continue engaging in said conduct with Tech Platforms.

In Aaron Kheharty’s Substack post that was published the same day the appeal was filed, he gives a general overview of the injunction’s intent.

If such communications continue, they will be subject to subpoena in our case and could implicate the actors in criminal liabilities for violating the injunction.

In his 155 page ruling, the Judge commented that, “If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.”

More specifically, the injunction would stop the defendants from meeting with social-media companies for the purpose of pressuring or inducing in any manner the removal or suppression of protected free speech;

• flagging posts on social-media platforms and/or forwarding to social-media companies urging the same;

• collaborating with the Election Integrity Partnership, the Virality Project, the Stanford Internet Observatory, or any “like project” or group for the same purpose;

• threatening or coercing social-media companies to remove protected free speech.

The immediate appeal is standard, yet it’s an intriguing development, nonetheless. Despite the 1st Amendment implications being alleged by the Plaintiffs, which Doughty aligns with, it’s too early to tell whether the appeal will be successful.

Hopefully this trial will bring to light the abhorrent behavior of the congressmen/women who in their official capacity tried to discredit the reporting done by journalists involved in the Twitter Files, as well as denying the allegations and characterizing them as misinformation, despite the overwhelming evidence provided within, as well as the evidence brought to light in discovery and depositions in this case.

Hopefully this will result in the dismantling of the CISA act as it pertains to DOMESTIC speech and cyber security issues pertaining to citizens speech on all platforms.

Hopefully those involved in the censorship will be highlighted in reports surrounding this case, as it’s critical for individuals to make informed ballot decisions.

STATE ACTION VS PRIVATE ACTION

Here is a segment from Kim Iverson that was my first time hearing about the update. Well worth watching as it touches on the idea of “State Action” vs ”Private Action”.

Here is that ruling:

Traditionally, the First Amendment imposes limitations only on “state action, not action by private parties.” Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 567 (1972). However, plaintiffs “may establish a First Amendment claim based on private conduct if that conduct ‘can fairly be seen as state action.’” Id. (quoting Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 838 (1982)).

There is no single test to identify state action and state actors, but the Supreme Court has “identified a host of facts that can bear on the fairness of such an attribution” of state action. Brentwood Acad. v. Tennessee Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288, 294, 296 (2001). Government action can exist in at least five circumstances:

(1) action that results from the State’s exercise of “coercive power,” id. at 295, 298 (quoting Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982));

(2) action that results from the state providing “significant encouragement, either overt or covert,” to a private action, id. (quoting Blum, 457 U.S. at 1004);

(3) action that results from a private actor operating as a willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents, id. (quoting Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 941 (1982));

(4) action that is entwined with governmental policies, or when the government is entwined in the management or control of the private action, id. (quoting Evans v. Newton, 382 U.S. 296, 299 (1966)); and

(5) action with specific features that combines to create a compelling case for state action, especially where a federal statute has immunized private conduct. Skinner v. Ry. Lab. Executives' Ass'n, 489 U.S. 602, 615 (1989).

COURTS STATE DEFINITIVELY THAT PLAINTIFFS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THAT FEDERAL COERCION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPPRESSION... LIKELY TO KEEP HAPPENING WITHOUT INTERVENTION

In this section I wanted to draw attention to the ruling that is referenced in this article written by

Aaron Kheriaty, MD. This Substack piece was the main inspiration behind this post.

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.

"Their allegations are more than complaints of past wrongs," the Monroe, La.-based judge said, referring to the non-state plaintiffs, including epidemiologists Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, coauthors of the anti-lockdown Great Barrington Declaration, and psychiatrist Aaron Kheriaty, fired by the University of California Irvine for refusing its COVID vaccine mandate.

"The threat of future censorship is substantial, and the history of past censorship is strong evidence that the threat of further censorship is not illusory or merely speculative," Doughty wrote.

The states have plausibly alleged the administration trampled on their "quasi-sovereign interests" in "protecting the freedom of expression of their residents" and enjoying "the benefits that are to flow from participation in the federal system," namely First Amendment rights, the judge said.

SUMMARY OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN 1ST AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS LISTED IN THE SUIT, AS WELL AS THEIR ROLE/INVOLVEMENT IN SAID ACTIONS

[Aaron Kheriaty, MD] — Attorneys General Bailey and Landry establish unconscionable Federal censorship activities – including, but not limited to:

• Fauci’s involvement in laundering lies into medical journals in an attempt to bury the lab-leak theory (to save himself from embarrassment given that he had been involved in gain-of-function research on coronaviruses).

• White House officials like Rob Flaherty, Andrew Slavitt, and Jennifer Psaki have engaged in a relentless pressure campaign, both in public and in private, to coerce platforms into censoring disfavored viewpoints on social media.

• Surgeon General Murthy and his staff coordinate closely with the White House in this pressure campaign, causing social-media platforms to scramble and assure federal officials that “we hear your call to do more” to censor disfavored viewpoints.

• The CDC flags specific social-media posts for censorship, organizes “BOLO” (“Be On the Lookout”) meetings to tell platforms what should be censored, and serves as the definitive fact-checker with final authority to dictate exactly what speech will be removed from social media.

• Dr. Fauci orchestrated an elaborate campaign of trickery and deception to induce social-media platforms to censor the lab-leak theory and other viewpoints he disfavors.

• The FBI, likewise, deliberately planted false information about “hack-and-leak” operations to deceive social-media platforms into censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story.

• The FBI, CISA, and the GEC collude with social-media platforms in hundreds of meetings about misinformation, and those agencies repeatedly flag huge quantities of First Amendment-protected speech to compliant platforms for censorship.

• CISA “switchboards” reports of so-called “misinformation” from state and local governments to platforms for censorship.

• CISA and the GEC are pervasively intertwined with massive government-private censorship enterprises like the Election Integrity Partnership, a collaboration among government, social-media platforms, and activist nonprofits to monitor, track, and censor enormous volumes of Americans’ speech on social media.

• Federal health officials in the Surgeon General’s Office, the CDC, and HHS collaborate in a similar censorship enterprise called the Virality Project, which procures the censorship of enormous quantities of First Amendment-protected speech.
  

All Defendants listed in Filings:

The Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 84] names sixty-seven defendants, who are hereinafter collectively referred to

as “Defendants”: Wally Adeyemo, Xavier Becerra, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Leah Bray, Yolanda Byrd, U.S. Census

Bureau, Elvis M Chan, Subhan Cheema, Christy Choi, U.S. Dept of Commerce, Carol Crawford, Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, Laura Dehmlow, Jay Dempsey, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, Jen Easterly, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Anthony Fauci, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Rob Flaherty, U.S. Food & Drug Administration, Alexis Frisbie, Kate Galatas, Kristin Galemore, Geoffrey Hale, Dept of Health & Human Services, Dept of Homeland Security, Mina Hsiang, Clarke Humphrey, Nina Jankowicz, Karine Jean-Pierre, Erica Jefferson, U.S. Dept of Justice, Brad Kimberly, Daniel Kimmage, Tericka Lambert, Timothy W Manning, Matthew Masterson, Alejandro Mayorkas, Gina McCarthy, Lorena Molina-Irizarry, Janell Muhammed, Michael Murray, Vivek H Murthy, Kristen Muthig, National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases, Joshua Peck, Lauren Protentis, Jennifer Rene Psaki, Dana Remus, Mark A Robbins, Laura Rosenberger, Courtney Rowe, Dori Salcido, Zachary Henry Schwartz, Brian Scully, Aisha Shah, Jennifer Shopkorn, Robert Silvers, Andrew Slavitt, Allison Snell, U.S. Dept of State, Samaruddin K Stewart, U.S. Dept of Treasury, Samantha Vinograd, Benjamin Wakana, Eric Waldo, Kim Wyman.

Subscribe now

Additional Citations:

https://justthenews.com/.../cohesive-and-coercive...

-"Plaintiffs have alleged the full picture: a cohesive and coercive campaign by the Biden Administration and all of the Agency Defendants," from the CDC and FDA to the FBI and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, "to threaten and persuade social media companies to more avidly censor so-called 'misinformation,'" Doughty wrote.

https://nclalegal.org/.../ECF-224-Order-Granting-in-Part...

-full 77 page ruling by judge denying all but 1 motion to dismiss in the case

https://www.agjefflandry.com/.../212...

-The new filings document "1,423 facts" about White House and federal agency officials coercing and colluding with social media platforms to censor speech, AGs Andrew Bailey and Jeff Landry said in a joint release.

https://justthenews.com/.../professor-say-fired-univ...

-Professor says fired from Univ of Calif system for violating vaccine mandate, despite immunity. Kheriaty sought exemption on grounds he had virus this past summer.

Share

https://www.whitehouse.gov/.../press-briefing-by-press.../

[Surgeon General Murthy]—“Fourth, we’re saying we expect more from our technology companies. We’re asking them to operate with greater transparency and accountability. We’re asking them to monitor misinformation more closely. We’re asking them to consistently take action against misinformation super-spreaders on their platforms.

You can read the full advisory at SurgeonGeneral.gov/HealthMisinformation.”

[Jen Psaki]—“And those of us who may have larger platforms, I think bear a greater responsibility to think about that. But the bottom line is all of us have an important role here to play, and technology companies have a particularly important role.

We know that the dramatic increase in the speed — speed and scale of spreading misinformation has, in part, been enabled by these platforms. So that’s why in this advisory today, we are asking them to step up. We know they have taken some steps to address misinformation, but much, much more has to be done. And we can’t wait longer for them to take aggressive action because it’s costing people their lives…

…Sure. Well, first, we are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team, given, as Dr. Murthy conveyed, this is a big issue of misinformation, specifically on the pandemic.

In terms of actions, Alex, that we have taken — or we’re working to take, I should say — from the federal government: We’ve increased disinformation research and tracking within the Surgeon General’s office. We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation. We’re working with doctors and medical professionals to connect — to connect medical experts with popular — with popular — who are popular with their audiences with — with accurate information and boost trusted content. So we’re helping get trusted content out there.”

Subscribe now