Medical experts censored by Big Tech during the pandemic due to interference by the Biden administration will have their case heard by the US Supreme Court.On October 23, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments over the Fifth Circuit’s grant of a preliminary injunction in Missouri v. Biden.The injunction would bar officials from the White House, CDC, FBI, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and Surgeon General’s office from coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech.Dr. Aaron Kheriaty welcomed the news in a post on Substack.“My fellow plaintiffs and I welcome this opportunity to defend the First Amendment rights of all Americans in the US Supreme Court. We expect to hear from the Court soon regarding the hearing dates — it could be in February or March,” he wrote.“The vast, coordinated and well-documented effort has silenced influential, highly qualified voices including doctors and scientists like my co-plaintiffs Dr. Bhattacharya and Dr. Kulldorff, as well as those like Jill Hines who have tried to raise awareness of issues." "Though the US Supreme Court temporarily stayed the Fifth Circuit’s injunction until they make a ruling, I believe the Justices are ultimately unlikely to permit the egregious First Amendment abridgements our case has exposed.”Last month, the Fifth Circuit panel of judges upheld the key components of US District Judge Terry Doughty’s July 4 preliminary injunction order. This prohibited named federal officials from coercing or significantly encouraging social media companies to suppress legal speech.“That decision vindicated our claims that we — and countless other Americans — were blacklisted, shadow-banned, de-boosted, throttled and suspended on social media as part of the government’s years-long censorship campaign orchestrated by the federal government,” wrote Kheriaty.“The Biden Administration’s censorship regime has successfully suppressed perspectives contradicting government-approved views on hotly disputed topics such as whether natural immunity to COVID exists, the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, the virus’s origins and mask mandate efficacy." "Beyond COVID, the documents we’ve obtained on discovery demonstrate that the government was also censoring critiques of its foreign policy, monetary policy, election infrastructure and lighting rod social issues from abortion to gender ideology.”The Fifth Circuit recognized the plaintiffs did “not challenge the social-media platforms’ content-moderation policies.” Rather, Plaintiffs challenged the government’s unlawful efforts to influence “enforcement of those policies.” “The government gravely harmed the ability of Americans to convey their views to the public and it deprived Americans of their right to hear opinions that differ from the government’s,” Kheriaty wrote.Judge Doughty described the Biden administration’s conduct as “arguably the most massive attack against free speech in United States history” and “akin to an Orwellian Ministry of Truth.” Lawyers from the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) brought the case forward and reacted to the news in a press release.John Vecchione, senior litigation counsel at the NCLA, said he wished the matter was already settled, but was optimistic for a favourable decision.“We are disappointed Americans’ First Amendment rights will be vulnerable to government infringement until this case is decided. But we are confident this Court, as strong as it is on First Amendment issues, will rule against the government and uphold our clients’ rights and liberties.”Litigation lawyer Jenin Younes welcomed the opportunity to argue before the Supreme Court.“We are confident that after a thorough review of the disturbing facts in this important case — which involves unprecedented government-imposed, viewpoint-based censorship — the Court will recognize the grievous, unconstitutional nature of the government’s conduct and enjoin it,” Younes said.Mark Chenoweth, president of the NCLA, hoped the Supreme Court would be even more strident.“If anything, the Fifth Circuit’s decision did not go far enough in enjoining the reprehensible conduct exposed in this case. The facts of this case show government agencies censored speech in a deliberate effort to control the narrative on several controversial topics ahead of the last election.' "The First Amendment forbids such censorship and the Supreme Court must never allow such mischief again, if we are to keep our democracy.”The NCLA celebrated a victory in California on October 2, when Gov. Gavin Newsom repealed a law introduced in September 2022 that would have subjected physicians to discipline for sharing information that departs from the “contemporary scientific consensus” on COVID-19 with their patients. Injunctions due to NCLA legal action kept the law from ever taking effect.
Medical experts censored by Big Tech during the pandemic due to interference by the Biden administration will have their case heard by the US Supreme Court.On October 23, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments over the Fifth Circuit’s grant of a preliminary injunction in Missouri v. Biden.The injunction would bar officials from the White House, CDC, FBI, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and Surgeon General’s office from coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech.Dr. Aaron Kheriaty welcomed the news in a post on Substack.“My fellow plaintiffs and I welcome this opportunity to defend the First Amendment rights of all Americans in the US Supreme Court. We expect to hear from the Court soon regarding the hearing dates — it could be in February or March,” he wrote.“The vast, coordinated and well-documented effort has silenced influential, highly qualified voices including doctors and scientists like my co-plaintiffs Dr. Bhattacharya and Dr. Kulldorff, as well as those like Jill Hines who have tried to raise awareness of issues." "Though the US Supreme Court temporarily stayed the Fifth Circuit’s injunction until they make a ruling, I believe the Justices are ultimately unlikely to permit the egregious First Amendment abridgements our case has exposed.”Last month, the Fifth Circuit panel of judges upheld the key components of US District Judge Terry Doughty’s July 4 preliminary injunction order. This prohibited named federal officials from coercing or significantly encouraging social media companies to suppress legal speech.“That decision vindicated our claims that we — and countless other Americans — were blacklisted, shadow-banned, de-boosted, throttled and suspended on social media as part of the government’s years-long censorship campaign orchestrated by the federal government,” wrote Kheriaty.“The Biden Administration’s censorship regime has successfully suppressed perspectives contradicting government-approved views on hotly disputed topics such as whether natural immunity to COVID exists, the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, the virus’s origins and mask mandate efficacy." "Beyond COVID, the documents we’ve obtained on discovery demonstrate that the government was also censoring critiques of its foreign policy, monetary policy, election infrastructure and lighting rod social issues from abortion to gender ideology.”The Fifth Circuit recognized the plaintiffs did “not challenge the social-media platforms’ content-moderation policies.” Rather, Plaintiffs challenged the government’s unlawful efforts to influence “enforcement of those policies.” “The government gravely harmed the ability of Americans to convey their views to the public and it deprived Americans of their right to hear opinions that differ from the government’s,” Kheriaty wrote.Judge Doughty described the Biden administration’s conduct as “arguably the most massive attack against free speech in United States history” and “akin to an Orwellian Ministry of Truth.” Lawyers from the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) brought the case forward and reacted to the news in a press release.John Vecchione, senior litigation counsel at the NCLA, said he wished the matter was already settled, but was optimistic for a favourable decision.“We are disappointed Americans’ First Amendment rights will be vulnerable to government infringement until this case is decided. But we are confident this Court, as strong as it is on First Amendment issues, will rule against the government and uphold our clients’ rights and liberties.”Litigation lawyer Jenin Younes welcomed the opportunity to argue before the Supreme Court.“We are confident that after a thorough review of the disturbing facts in this important case — which involves unprecedented government-imposed, viewpoint-based censorship — the Court will recognize the grievous, unconstitutional nature of the government’s conduct and enjoin it,” Younes said.Mark Chenoweth, president of the NCLA, hoped the Supreme Court would be even more strident.“If anything, the Fifth Circuit’s decision did not go far enough in enjoining the reprehensible conduct exposed in this case. The facts of this case show government agencies censored speech in a deliberate effort to control the narrative on several controversial topics ahead of the last election.' "The First Amendment forbids such censorship and the Supreme Court must never allow such mischief again, if we are to keep our democracy.”The NCLA celebrated a victory in California on October 2, when Gov. Gavin Newsom repealed a law introduced in September 2022 that would have subjected physicians to discipline for sharing information that departs from the “contemporary scientific consensus” on COVID-19 with their patients. Injunctions due to NCLA legal action kept the law from ever taking effect.
