A Louisiana district court ruled late Tuesday that plaintiffs Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Children’s Health Defense (CHD) have the legal right to sue the Biden administration for pressuring tech giants to censor their social media posts.
The judgment came less than a month after a federal appeals court declined to rule on a preliminary injunction prohibiting the administration from coordinating with social media companies until the district court decided the plaintiffs’ standing.
Standing is the legal doctrine that requires plaintiffs to show they have suffered direct and concrete injuries and that those injuries could be resolved in court in order to sue.
Commenting on Tuesday’s ruling in Kennedy v. Biden, Kim Mack Rosenberg, CHD general counsel, said that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana “reached what we believe is the correct conclusion with respect to standing for CHD and Mr. Kennedy.”
Perhaps even “more importantly,” she told The Defender:
“Judge Terry Doughty carefully and clearly analyzed the law and facts and applied the framework from the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Murthy v. Missouri regarding standing. The court also firmly found in plaintiffs’ favor that plaintiffs had not waived — and indeed had affirmatively raised — direct censorship claims in addition to listener claims.”
📣 GREAT NEWS! Judge Terry Doughty of the Western District of Louisiana has found that @RobertKennedyJr, CHD and Connie Sampognaro have standing in the lawsuit Kennedy v. Biden to continue our case in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Facebook admitted suppressing truthful CHD social media posts
In his decision, Doughty summarized the evidence, outlining a series of specific instances where Kennedy and CHD were censored.
He also reviewed the three requirements for “standing,” which are that a plaintiff must show that they suffered an injury, that the injury is traceable to the defendant’s actions and that it can be redressed through a favorable decision.
CHD CEO Mary Holland said Doughty found that the government’s conduct is traceable to direct statements and instructions to social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram and YouTube.
“Further, the judge found that a preliminary injunction, which mandates that the government stop censoring plaintiffs through social media, would redress their injuries,” Holland said.
Doughty wrote that Kennedy and CHD “were in positions contrary to Government positions on COVID-19, including mask mandates, vaccine mandates, vaccine injuries, lockdowns, etc.,” that Kennedy was identified by the Center for Countering Digital Hate as part of the so-called “Disinformation Dozen,” and that CHD was named as a tool for spreading “anti-vaccine messages.”
Doughty also reviewed a series of meetings and emails between the White House and Twitter and Facebook, which occurred throughout 2021, in which those companies agreed to de-amplify, place warnings on or fully censor posts containing so-called “vaccine misinformation,” regardless of whether the information was true.
For example, in one email Clark Humphrey, a member of the Biden administration’s COVID-19 response team, requested Twitter remove one of Kennedy’s tweets. The tech giant complied.
“Facebook admitted that although the CHD’s posts did not violate its policies, it would suppress content that originated from CHD,” Doughty wrote.
He cited reports written by organizations, such as the Virality Project, which named Kennedy and CHD specifically, flagging them with “tickets” to report COVID-19 misinformation to the social media giants.
He also cited the fact that Kennedy’s Instagram account was suspended and CHD continues to be deplatformed from Instagram, Facebook and YouTube — showing that CHD faces ongoing injury, a requirement for standing.
“There is not much dispute that both Kennedy and CHD were specifically targeted by the White House, the Office of Surgeon General, and CISA [Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency], and the content of Kennedy and CHD were suppressed,” he wrote.
Given censorship of the Donald Trump presidential campaign on social media, and evidence presented in a declaration by Brigid Rasmussen, the chief of Kennedy’s presidential campaign, stating that content favorable to the campaign had been censored on social media, Doughty ruled that Kennedy faces a “substantial risk” that government defendants will restrict his speech in the future.
Doughty ruled that the third plaintiff in the case, Connie Sampognaro, a Louisiana healthcare professional, who argued she was deprived of the “right to listen” to censored organizations did not have standing. Doughty said Sampognaro did not show specific instances of content moderation that caused her harm.
‘Undisputed that CHD has satisfied its burden of showing injury’
The court ruled the plaintiffs — two states and five social media users — did not have standing because they couldn’t show “specific causation” for any instance of content moderation tied to the government.
The court also said the plaintiffs couldn’t demonstrate a substantial risk that “in the near future they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a Government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek.”
The injunction issued in Kennedy v. Biden was granted on Feb. 14 by Doughty, who also issued a stay until 10 days after the Supreme Court ruled on the injunction in Murthy v. Biden.
After the Supreme Court overturned the Murthy v. Missouri injunction, the Biden administration appealed the injunction in Kennedy v. Biden to the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, citing the same argument they used in Murthy v. Missouri — that the plaintiffs lacked standing.
The 5th Circuit sent the case back to the District Court to rule on standing. In its ruling yesterday, Doughty wrote:
“This Court finds that there is significant evidence showing Kennedy was directly censored in the past, and there is likely a substantial risk that Kennedy’s content will be restricted in the future because of the actions of at least one of the Government Defendants. …
“It is undisputed that CHD has satisfied its burden of showing injury in fact for much of the same reasons that Kennedy has.”
Only one plaintiff needs to have standing for a case to move forward. The case will now proceed to the 5th Circuit, which will rule on the preliminary injunction.
The Defender on occasion posts content related to Children’s Health Defense’s nonprofit mission that features Mr. Kennedy’s views on the issues CHD and The Defender regularly cover. In keeping with Federal Election Commission rules, this content does not represent an endorsement of Mr. Kennedy who is on leave from CHD and is running for president of the U.S. as an independent candidate.
Censorship in the internet, big media and artificial intelligence.
David Icke: “The World Changes FOREVER if This Happens in 2025…”
We are being deceived by numerous entities: our governments, big tech companies, intelligence agencies, the media, social media platforms, and every other information source we once trusted. This is the latest warning from David Icke, a prominent speaker and self-published writer who works tirelessly to uncover the evil machinations of global elites, the latest of which Icke says is to use the internet to control the global populace. In a recent discussion with Strike It Big Podcast, Icke unravels the layers of falsehoods and how those at the helm of global affairs use social media as a tool of subjugation, misinformation, and censorship. Icke reveals a grand scheme to gain absolute control over every aspect of our lives through the Internet. He explains that the first phase of this scheme, which aimed to make us heavily dependent on the Internet, has already been successful with a significant portion of the global population. The next phase involves using artificial intelligence to control the Internet. The former BBC Sports Broadcaster warns that by 2025, artificial intelligence will generate more than 90 percent of online content, shaping reality for the global population as it sees fit.
We share interviews from experts like Rick Rule, Peter Schiff, Mike Maloney, Lynette Zang, and many others. Stay up-to-date with the world of finance and make informed decisions with our expert insights. Subscribe now and never miss a video!
Transcript
Number one you create the internet but you’ve got to pull the population in so you don’t censor you don’t censor you just um have the free fly of information you don’t like it but it’s necessary what you’re waiting for is that point we now past. It where the internet dominates communication and as so infiltrated Human Society technologically via everything being connected to the internet that there’s no turning back gotcha okay.
Now we’ll start we are being deceived by numerous entities our governments big tech companies intelligence agencies the media social media platforms and every other information Source we once trusted.
This is the latest warning from David Ike a prominent speaker and self-published writer who works tirelessly to uncover the evil machinations of global Elite. The latest of which Ike says is to use the internet to control the global populace. In a recent discussion with strike it big podcast Ike unravels the layers of falsehoods and how those at the helm of global Affairs use social media as a tool of subjugation misinformation and censorship.
Ike reveals a grand scheme to gain absolute control over every aspect of our lives through the internet he explains that the first phase of this scheme which aimed to make us heavily dependent on the internet has already been successful. With a significant portion of the global population the next phase involves using artificial intelligence to control the internet the former BBC sports broadcaster warns that by 2025 artificial intelligence will generate more than 90% of online content shaping reality for the global population as it sees fit. Ike warns that social media platforms shroud undue censorship under the guise of maintaining order or protecting certain groups and belief belie systems but the real reason is power and control they want to control everything we see and read so we don’t have any original thoughts and will become unable to question the mainstream narrative. The result is that we all become zombies open to all commands and suggestions from this Global cult they ask us to jump we simply ask how far they ask us to give up all our values we do without hesitation until one day we own nothing and they own everything. During the podcast I expresses how urgent this has all become, stressing that we must not be complicit in our own enslavement we will present clips from the discussion in which Ike discusses the importance of freedom of speech how it’s been stolen from us through censorship and how those who seek to control and subjugate us are feeding on our fears. As we present the clips please take a little time to like this video subscribe to the channel and activate the notifications Bell for more related content. Thank you and enjoy the video video the principle is freedom of speech um if everyone doesn’t have freedom to speak then there’s no freedom of speech all that’s left is what is acceptable to speak and that um acceptability is being squeezed and squeezed and squeezed and squeezed so things that were perfectly okay to say not that long ago will now get you banned or demonized or whatever and what it comes down to is this what I’ve been saying now for 34 years is that uh uh a a network of secret societies fiercely compartmentalized so most of the people in the secret societies don’t know the big story.
Um H have been pushing the world towards a global dystopia and of course for a long time it didn’t seem that that was the case because people were getting on with their lives and they were posting on the social media and it was all right. It started to Dawn on people that a global dystopia not least a digital concentration camp thus the end of cash which I predicted in 1992 by the way in a book um is unfolding before our eyes. 15 minute cities um all the rest of it uh the war on the motorist the war on movement so then you you look at that and you think and lots of people have said this to me uh a few people can’t control the world it’s not possible well you know the sad thing it’s a dottle it’s a dole because of two reasons.
The second one I’ll come to but the first one is relevant to your question freedom of speech what is that freedom of opinion Freedom of Information and how do we form our perceptions from information we receive it might be a Facebook post it might be the 10 o00 News whatever. It might be someone you meet but we form our perceptions from information received. Now from perception comes Behavior we behave as we do because we perceive as we do and we perceive as we do because of the information we receive so if you want to control people’s behavior you have to control their perception and you do that by increasingly through this hysterical level of extreme censorship.
Now you hijack the sources of information that they are people are hearing so they only hear your narrative it people only hear one story they’re almost certain lying to believe it in the absence of anything to challenge it. So the reason we don’t have free debate is because the official narratives do not stand up to scrutiny even the mildest scrutiny and thus if you had an open debate then the official narrative will be all over the floor so what do you do if you control the global media. If you control Silicon Valley indeed you created it you make sure you don’t have that debate and you do that by censorship and I would make this point too that censorship is not an expression of power. P people with real power people with self-security they don’t want to censor anybody People who are confident that what they say will stand up to scrutiny don’t want to censor anybody they also realize that people having different opinions to you is the very Foundation of human freedom. And once that’s gone it’s over there is no Freedom if you have a narrative you know won’t stand up to scrutiny if there is a perception you want to impose upon the people through suppression of the absence of any alternative then open debate and the free flow of information terrifies you so what we’re looking at with this censorship through uh Silicon Valley the media and anything else that moves is not an expression of power it’s an expression of weakness. It’s saying to you we know that our narrative won’t stand up so we’re not going to let it be um be challenged. Ike believes a huge connection exists between our governments the global cult and Silicon Valley Executives.
That’s why though they try to seem different and independent of one another they always manage to work together to achieve certain goals particularly those geared toward the end game.
According to Ike they are one and the same with the same goal of bringing about a new world order for us all during the podcast he further warns that there is more to the internet than many people realize.
Ike believes it was deliberately created to draw people in give them a false sense of safety and then reel it all in to bring us these heavily censored versions we now have to live with.
The only issue is we are way too dependent on these platforms now let’s get back to the video if you look at the social media uh first of all the censorship means that people can basically only go so far but it is a um it is a vehicle for division I mean it’s a vehicle for abuse it’s a vehicle for ridicule and um it’s not a vehicle for coming together and therefore it’s um it’s playing into the hands of this cult. because if you if you are a few and you want to control the many you have to divide and rule the many you know uh the you can’t control 8 billion people when you’re a relative handful by comparison unless the 8 billion play a central role in in their own control and the you know people say that um the word yes is positive and the word no is negative not true we’ve got into this mess. We’ve got into this unfolding dystopia by continually saying yes yes sir no sir okay sir anything you say Sir or well I don’t want to do it sir but I find the consequences not doing it so I’m going to do it as well just like them. It just don’t question anything um that’s how we got into this mess and it’s no that’s going to get us out of it no I’m not doing that no I’m not cooperating with my own enslavement. That’s the way we’re going to get out of it and what happens with social media is it’s basically a brawl it’s just a verbal keyboard brawl goes on uh but through that for intelligent people who are Discerning you can get nuggets of of Truth and information out that that um that circulates. And you know let’s look at the Internet it’s it’s an interesting uh point because the internet now and social media now is not how it started out. I remember when it started uh before it started even if I was doing an event or I was trying to get information out you stood in the street and you Ed leaflets out and then suddenly this internet came along and uh we had the free flow of information for a a while and for people like me it was fantastic. But you know you put a fishing line out and then when you catch the fish you pull the fishing line in gotcha and this is what the internet really is I would s first of all Darpha the technological development AR of the Pentagon um claims credit openly for the creation of the internet and it’s military technology is based on right. So this was the thing number one you create the internet but you’ve got to pull the population in so you don’t censor you don’t censor you just um have the free fly of information you don’t like it but it’s necessary and as that unfolds more and more people come onto the internet oh yes oh God this is good you can say what you like and oh yeah it’s really great um and as more people use that as a form of communication so the other forms of communication the newspapers the television Etc they start to go down in their audience uh levels and their influence and the internet starts to dominate what you’re what you’re waiting for is that point we now where the internet dominates communication and a so infiltrated Human Society technologically via everything being connected to the internet that there’s no turning back gotcha okay. Now we’ll start censoring okay we don’t like censorship oh really how well she going to communicate apart from with us late last month the Supreme Court declined a request from a group of social media users and two states to limit the Biden administration’s efforts to urge social media companies to remove content deemed as misinformation. The Court ruled that the users and the states Louisiana and Missouri lacked the legal standing to pursue an injunction against the Biden Administration for its interactions with the social media platforms.
The users had claimed that their freedom of speech was unconstitutionally infringed upon when their posts were removed or suppressed following pressure from Administration officials. The Supreme Court’s decision overturns a lower Court ruling that had restricted the White House and administration officials interactions with social media platforms limitation the justice department contended was excessive the injunction from the lower court had been temporarily suspended while the Supreme Court reviewed the case. Since the ruling was announced many have expressed concern about the dangerous precedent the Apex court has set and what it would mean for free speech going forward this is why Ike and other so-called conspiracy theorists
Advocate the importance of questioning the narrative and using platforms that don’t seek to take away this important right from assault. If you found this message compelling please share your thoughts in the comments below if you enjoyed this video be sure to give it a thumbs up subscribe to our Channel and turn on post notifications for more thought-provoking content. Thank you for watching
We are being deceived by numerous entities: our governments, big tech companies, intelligence agencies, the media, social media platforms, and every other information source we once trusted. This is the latest warning from David Icke, a prominent speaker and self-published writer who works tirelessly to uncover the evil machinations of global elites, the latest of which Icke says is to use the internet to control the global populace. In a recent discussion with Strike It Big Podcast, Icke unravels the layers of falsehoods and how those at the helm of global affairs use social media as a tool of subjugation, misinformation, and censorship. Icke reveals a grand scheme to gain absolute control over every aspect of our lives through the Internet. He explains that the first phase of this scheme, which aimed to make us heavily dependent on the Internet, has already been successful with a significant portion of the global population. The next phase involves using artificial intelligence to control the Internet. The former BBC Sports Broadcaster warns that by 2025, artificial intelligence will generate more than 90 percent of online content, shaping reality for the global population as it sees fit.
We bring you the latest news, insights, and analysis on gold, silver, and copper. Our videos cover a wide range of topics, including gold price, gold prediction, gold price forecast, silver price, silver price prediction, copper price, market trends, investment strategies, and industry news.
We share interviews from experts like Rick Rule, Peter Schiff, Mike Maloney, Lynette Zang, and many others. Stay up-to-date with the world of finance and make informed decisions with our expert insights. Subscribe now and never miss a video!
Credit: STRIKE IT BIG PODCAST David Icke: The Truth About Free Speech, Who Controls The World & Money • David Icke: The Truth About Free Spee…
A congressional investigation uncovered allegations that some of the world’s largest brands and advertising agencies are colluding to control online speech through coordinated boycotts and content demonetization schemes.
“Through GARM, large corporations, advertising agencies, and industry associations participated in boycotts and other coordinated action to demonetize platforms, podcasts, news outlets, and other content deemed disfavored by GARM and its members,” the report states.
The committee’s investigation, which focused on GARM’s activities since its creation in 2019, examined its influence over major social media platforms, news outlets and content creators.
The report suggests that GARM’s actions may have far-reaching implications for online discourse and consumer choice in media.
Chilling.
An organization run by junk food companies (Mars, Nestle, Unilever, Diageo) created the Global Alliance for Responsible Media in order to pressure censorship of @joerogan (whose most consistent message is to eat healthy food and exercise). https://t.co/Q1bWv6Y79f
GARM was established in 2019 by the WFA, which represents over 150 of the world’s biggest brands and more than 60 national advertiser associations globally.
According to this week’s congressional report, GARM’s influence stems from the collective power of its members. “WFA members represent roughly 90% of global advertising spend, or almost one trillion dollars annually,” the document states.
The alliance includes major players in the advertising industry:
Every major advertising agency holding company.
GroupM, the world’s largest media buying agency, on its Steer Team.
Four large corporations — Unilever, Mars, Diageo, and Procter & Gamble — that together spend billions annually on advertising.
GARM’s Steer Team, which acts as a board of directors, is closely involved in day-to-day operations. The initiative reports to the WFA Executive Committee, which includes representatives from major corporations such as AB InBev, L’Oréal, Nestlé and IBM.
Robert Rakowitz, GARM’s initiative lead and co-founder, plays a central role in the organization’s activities. The report cites internal emails in which Rakowitz expressed views on free speech, describing an “extreme global interpretation of the US Constitution” as problematic.
GARM claims to focus on “content monetization” rather than “content moderation.” However, the report argues that these areas are “inextricably linked,” suggesting that GARM’s work effectively influences what content appears online.
In Wednesday’s congressional hearing on GARM, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), while questioning the CEO of GroupM and GARM board member Christian Juhl, said that GARM “sounds a lot like a cartel to me.”
🚩 Rep. Jim Jordan Says the GARM Ad Council Likely Broke Antitrust Laws Through Their Coordinated Efforts to Demonetize Conservative Platforms
“That sounds a lot like a cartel to me…Sounds a lot like limiting actions that would limit consumer choice. That sounds like unlawful… pic.twitter.com/0uGRw5ab9I
The congressional report alleges that GARM’s activities may violate Section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, which prohibits unreasonable restraints of trade. The committee report cites several examples of GARM’s alleged coordinated actions:
1. Twitter boycott after Elon Musk acquisition. Following Musk’s acquisition of Twitter (now known as X) in October 2022, GARM allegedly orchestrated a boycott of the platform. According to the report, GARM recommended its members “stop … all paid advertisement” on Twitter in response to the takeover.
Internal documents show that GARM held “extensive debriefing and discussion around [Musk’s] takeover of Twitter,” providing opportunities for the boycott to be organized. The report claims that GARM later boasted about “taking on Elon Musk” and noted that Twitter was “80% below revenue forecasts” as a result.
2. Pressure on Spotify over Joe Rogan podcast. In early 2022, GARM and its Steer Team allegedly pressured Spotify over content on Rogan’s podcast, “The Joe Rogan Experience.” The report states that GARM members urged action against Spotify due to alleged misinformation on Rogan’s show, particularly regarding COVID-19 vaccines after Rogan said that young, healthy people didn’t need them.
Rogan later featured Dr. Robert Malone on his podcast, which prompted GroupM to reach out to Spotify after musician Neil Young removed his content from the platform in protest over vaccine-skeptical material.
House Judiciary Report Shows I am Being Censored by the Largest Corporations in the World GARM’s Harm: How the World’s Biggest Brands Seek to Control Online Speechhttps://t.co/0beGN2j2f7pic.twitter.com/bGN5xErwvA
Internal emails cited in the report show Rakowitz coordinating with member companies to formulate responses to Spotify. In one instance, he wrote that he “can’t publicly advise all clients to do X — that gets us into hot water by way of anticompetitive and collusive behaviors.”
3. Efforts to demonetize certain news outlets. The report alleges that GARM and its members discussed strategies to block certain news outlets, including Fox News, The Daily Wire and Breitbart News.
An internal email from a GARM Steer Team member describes monitoring these outlets closely. The email states that as much as he “hated their ideology and bulls**t,” his company “couldn’t really justify blocking them for misguided opinion[s]” but that it “watched them very carefully and it didn’t take long for them to cross the line.”
The congressional committee argued that these coordinated actions if proven, could constitute illegal restraints of trade that harm consumers by limiting their choices and access to diverse viewpoints online.
GARM’s influence on political content and elections
Through their content moderation efforts, GARM and its members attempted to influence political discourse and election outcomes — including pushing for coordinated action around the 2020 U.S. presidential election, according to the report.
In an October 2020 email, Rakowitz suggested telling Facebook it was “at a crossroads for the platform and fence sitting on content curation and moderation” and that it should apply its COVID-19 content moderation policies to election-related content.
The report cites an instance of GARM members pressuring Facebook to label a then-President Donald Trump campaign advertisement as misinformation. When Facebook refused, citing its policy of not fact-checking political candidates’ ads, Rakowitz allegedly described the decision as “honestly reprehensible” in an internal email.
The report also claims that GARM members expressed concerns about Musk’s handling of the Hunter Biden laptop story on Twitter. After Musk released internal Twitter documents about the platform’s suppression of the story, a GARM member reportedly described Musk’s actions as an “overtly partisan take.”
Misinformation definition and application. In 2022, GARM added a definition of misinformation to its framework, describing it as “verifiably false or willfully misleading content that is directly connected to user or societal harm.”
The report suggests this broad definition could be weaponized against disfavored political views.
Committee members said Wednesday that these actions demonstrate GARM’s potential to influence political discourse and election outcomes by controlling which content receives advertising revenue and visibility on major platforms.
GARM’s partnerships with ad-tech companies and AI integration
The congressional report delves into GARM’s relationships with advertising technology companies and plans to integrate its framework into artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning tools.
According to the report, GARM partnered with several “ad-tech partners” that offer solutions to help brands understand where their advertisements appear and what content surrounds them.
The report alleges that membership in GARM was conditioned on these partners agreeing “to make commensurate changes to business operations in pursuit of GARM’s goals.”
According to the congressional committee, this arrangement allowed GARM’s biases to be “baked directly into the solutions, allowing brands to seamlessly integrate GARM’s censorship.”
AI and machine learning integration
GARM’s plans for the future involve pushing its framework into AI solutions, according to the report. The committee said it was concerned that GARM’s partners are developing AI tools that will integrate GARM’s standards seamlessly across social media platforms.
“Such an automated censorship effort could result in the demonetization of any views or voices that GARM’s advertising cartel dislikes, potentially without any human involvement at all,” the report states.
Specific examples cited in the report include:
1. Zefr, a GARM ad-tech partner, which claims its “proprietary discriminative AI is powered by years of training data on platforms, and goes beyond keyword and text-based analyses, combining AI and ground truth data from global fact checking organizations that is mapped to the industry standards” set by GARM.
The combination of GARM’s framework with AI-powered content moderation tools could lead to opaque and potentially biased decisions about which content receives advertising revenue, ultimately limiting consumer choice and diverse viewpoints online, according to the report.
Connections to government agencies and censorship efforts
The congressional report alleges connections between GARM’s partners and government agencies involved in content moderation efforts. Specifically, it points to collaboration between GARM ad-tech partner Channel Factory and the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).
According to the report, Channel Factory worked with CISA to develop a “common lexicon” for discussing misinformation.
An email cited in the report shows Channel Factory’s global chief strategy officer sharing this lexicon with GARM’s initiative lead, stating, “The industry will need a common lexicon and detailed definitions in order to make progress … attached is the lexicon we developed with CISA/DHS … which may provide” a useful starting point.
This type of collaboration could lead to government influence over private-sector content moderation practices, the committee report stated.
The report noted that Channel Factory is also a member of YouTube’s Measurement Program, suggesting that these connections could have far-reaching implications for online content moderation.
Former U.S. Department of State official Mike Benz in a video posted on X Wednesday, alleged that U.S. government-linked efforts to control online content with groups like GARM go back at least to 2017.
The financial engine of US foreign policy & covert action — USAID — embarked on a quest to get advertiser networks like GARM to stop servicing populist-aligned online news websites as early as 2017, I explained to @charliekirk11 (Part 1) pic.twitter.com/2w1hr04ZRT
GARM engages in ‘dangerous, anticompetitive behavior’
The House Judiciary Committee concluded that GARM’s actions may violate antitrust laws and threaten free speech and consumer choice online.
According to the report, GARM’s members’ collective power allows them to achieve through coordination what they could not accomplish individually.
The report states:
“If collusion among powerful corporations capable of collectively demonetizing, and in effect eliminating, certain views and voices is allowed to continue, the ability of countless American consumers to choose what to read and listen to, or even have their speech or writing reach other Americans, will be destroyed.”
The committee emphasized that antitrust laws still apply even if GARM claims to have good intentions. It states that federal antitrust laws “do not diminish because GARM or its members claim to have good intentions.”
The committee said it will continue its oversight of GARM and evaluate the adequacy of existing antitrust laws. It suggested that legislative reforms may be necessary to address what it describes as “dangerous, anticompetitive behavior.”
Watch the House Judiciary Committee’s July 10 hearing:
Supreme Court ruled, but the censorship fight isn’t over
Mary Holland, CEOchildrenshealthdefense.org From:team@childrenshealthdefense.org AM Having trouble viewing this email? View it in your web browser
Today is a sad day for freedom of speech in America — but the fight isn’t over. Not by a long shot. We need your help to continue the fight to protect our rights.I am deeply disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision that the plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri — two states and five individuals — “lack standing” to pursue claims that the government coerced social media platforms to censor independent speech.
While CHD believes the 6-3 majority got it wrong — and the dissent got it right — we are focused on continuing the fight.
But we need your help today. Here’s why. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and CHD filed a separate lawsuit in the same court as the Missouri plaintiffs because Kennedy and CHD were directly and traceably censored — and continue to be heavily censored.Our case is about to resume in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision, and we believe it can overcome the weaknesses in the Murthy case. Complex litigation costs money — a lot of it. So today, I’m asking you to make a donation to support our battle against censorship.
We are fighting censorship in several cases where you can make a critical difference:
We are awaiting a decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in CHD v. Meta Platforms in our case against Facebook, its fact-checkers and Mark Zuckerberg’s joint action with the government to demonetize, shadow ban and deplatform CHD.
We are awaiting a ruling in a case in Washington, D.C., against the Trusted News Initiative — including Reuters, Associated Press and The Washington Post — for colluding with Big Tech to censor CHD and many other independent news outlets in an illegal group boycott that violates antitrust laws.
We’re representing doctors in California, Washington and Maine, where the state licensing boards and the states themselves are preventing doctors from speaking freely with their patients and the public.
And we’re moving forward in Kennedy v. Biden to stop federal officials from coercing and encouraging social media giants to stamp us out.
The next government-declared emergency — whether bird flu or climate lockdown or some other alleged catastrophe — may be just around the corner.Let’s make sure CHD and other independent news outlets can get you necessary, potentially lifesaving information.With your support, we can win the fight to uphold the First Amendment.Please give what you can.Free speech and freedom of the press are worth it! With thanks,Mary Holland CEO Children’s Health Defense P.S. Please consider making a recurring donation to support CHD’s legal, scientific, educational, and advocacy work. Together, we can and do make a difference in the world!
The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled against plaintiffs, including two states and five social media users, who sued top Biden officials and government agencies for pressuring social media companies to censor content.
In the 6-3 decision in Murthy v. Missouri, the justices ruled the plaintiffs didn’t have legal standing to bring their case.
The ruling reversed decisions by two lower courts, which held that when the government “coerced” or “significantly encouraged” the platforms to moderate content related to COVID-19, presidential elections and other controversial topics, they transformed the social media companies’ decisions into state action, violating plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.
Commenting on today’s decision, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) CEO Mary Holland said she “is deeply disappointed” in the court’s decision to reverse the preliminary injunction “that the Western District of Louisiana granted and the 5th Circuit affirmed.”
Holland said, “We consider the government’s role in coercing and encouraging censorship by social media platforms the greatest threat to free speech in our time.”
CHD and its founder and chairman on leave Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in March 2023 made similar allegations against the Biden administration in a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all American news consumers.
A federal judge in July 2023 consolidated the two lawsuits, which allowed them to have shared processes for discovery.
Plaintiffs in Kennedy et al. v. Biden et al. also requested and were granted a preliminary injunction by the same judge, Terry Doughty, prohibiting key Biden administration officials and agencies from coercing, significantly encouraging, or taking joint action with social media platforms to suppress or censor online content.
However, Judge Doughty simultaneously issued a stay on the injunction until 10 days after the Supreme Court ruling in Murthy v. Missouri.
Holland said that CHD and Kennedy don’t face the same problem of standing as some of the plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri and that Kennedy v. Biden is expected to move forward.
She said:
“We note that the Supreme Court did not reach the merits. We will continue with Kennedy v. Biden, a separate lawsuit in the Western District of Louisiana, where we believe there is no issue regarding lack of standing for Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. or Children’s Health Defense, who were directly and traceably censored and continue to be heavily censored.
“We expect this case to move forward even if standing remains an issue for the Missouri v. Biden plaintiffs.”
If Kennedy v. Biden is heard on its merits — which the court did not do in Murthy v. Missouri — the outcome could have wide-reaching implications for the First Amendment and online speech, Holland said.
On X, formerly Twitter, Kennedy said there is “no question” that he and CHD have standing:
The Supreme Court got it wrong – and has failed to uphold its responsibility to the Constitution by finding no standing in Murthy v. Missouri. My case of Kennedy v. Biden will proceed in the trial court where there is no question that @ChildrensHD and I have standing. Justice…
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) June 26, 2024
One of ‘the most important First Amendment’ cases of the internet age
The New York Times called Murthy v. Missouri one of “the most important First Amendment” cases of the internet age, because of the constitutional questions at stake.
Judge Doughty, in July 2023, issued a preliminary injunction in Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden), barring several federal agencies and Biden administration officials from engaging in those actions until the lawsuit was decided.
Then the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals narrowed but upheld what Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, called a “sweeping preliminary injunction,” in September 2023.
“The Fifth Circuit,” Barrett wrote, “was wrong to do so.”
The plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri — the states of Missouri and Arkansas, Drs. Jay Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff and Aaron Kheriaty, The Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft and health activist Jill Hines — argued that the censorship they experienced on social media could be tied to government action and that they are likely to be censored in the future.
Barrett disagreed, writing that social media companies have long-standing content moderation policies and plaintiffs didn’t show “specific causation” for discrete instances of content moderation tied to the government, nor did they demonstrate a substantial risk that “in the near future they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a Government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek.”
The court did concede that the federal government played a role in the content decisions, but maintained the relationship was more complex than the lower court rulings accounted for when they “glossed over complexities in the evidence”.
“The platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment. To be sure, the record reflects that the Government defendants played a role in at least some of the platforms’ moderation choices. But the Fifth Circuit, by attributing every platform decision at least in part to the defendants, glossed over complexities in the evidence.”
Barrett added that the lower court erred in “treating the defendants, plaintiffs, and platforms each as a unified whole,” and that instead, each plaintiff must demonstrate their own standing for each claim against each defendant.
Jenin Younes, an attorney for the plaintiffs, tweeted, “While disappointing, the decision is not devastating.” She said the underlying case will continue. “This fight is not over!!”
Alito dissents, ‘It was blatantly unconstitutional’
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch.
In his dissenting opinion, Alito called the case “one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years.”
He criticized the court for failing to address the underlying free speech questions at stake in the case and said that if any of the plaintiffs had standing — which he argued Hines did — the court was obligated to address the merits of the case.
“The Court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think,” Alito wrote.
He added that the extensive record plainly shows the administration coerced social media companies to comply with their wishes and suppress speech. “It was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so.”
What Alito called the “vast” record of evidence shows that some federal officials communicated with social media platforms about so-called “misinformation” on their websites, instructing the platforms to remove some content and some media accounts.
In response, the platforms created an expedited reporting system, removed certain content, and banned specific users from their websites. The platforms also modified their content policies to capture more posts and continued to remain in contact with these officials.
Relevant to the Kennedy v. Biden case, that record includes specific evidence the Biden officials sought to censor tweets by Kennedy.
For example, the White House specifically targeted Kennedy’s Jan. 22, 2021, tweet about the then-recent death of baseball Hall of Famer Hank Aaron, 18 days after he publicly received the Moderna vaccine.
The Defender on occasion posts content related to Children’s Health Defense’s nonprofit mission that features Mr. Kennedy’s views on the issues CHD and The Defender regularly cover. In keeping with Federal Election Commission rules, this content does not represent an endorsement of Mr. Kennedy, who is on leave from CHD and is running as an independent for president of the U.S.
The COVID-19 vaccines carry a much higher risk of blood clots in the brain compared with other vaccines, according to a new study by Dr. Peter McCullough and colleagues.
They counted the number of cerebral thromboembolism events — as in, blood clots of the brain’s veins or arteries — reported in people who received a COVID-19 shot compared with those who received a flu shot or other vaccines.
Blood clots that block blood flow to the brain account for roughly 87% of all strokes, according to the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
McCullough — a cardiologist with over 1,000 publications and over 685 citations in the National Library of Medicine — told The Defender the study showed “an unacceptable risk of catastrophic thrombotic injuries to the brain” in individuals who took one or more COVID-19 shots.
McCullough summarized the study’s results on Substack:
“Compared to influenza vaccines given over 34 years, COVID-19 vaccines in 36 months of use had over 1000-fold increased risk of most blood clot events, and compared to all vaccines combined administered over 34 years, this risk remained at over 200-times greater with COVID-19 vaccination.”
Prior research has suggested that the spike protein in both the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the COVID-19 vaccine can cause serious blood clotting, McCullough and his co-authors noted in their report.
Blood clots in the brain are difficult to treat, McCullough told The Defender, and “oftentimes leave patients with devastating disabilities.”
In the three years since the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, they found 5,137 reports of a brain blood clot event in those who received one or more COVID-19 shots.
Meanwhile, VAERS data showed only 52 reports since 1990 of a brain blood clot event following a flu vaccine and 282 since 1990 following all other vaccinations, they said.
The actual number of events may be higher due to underreporting in VAERS, they said, for several reasons.
First, CDC staff may have “tremendous difficulty” in processing the reports due to an overwhelming increase in VAERS reports since the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.
Also, clinicians may not have the necessary awareness and knowledge to recognize injuries as being vaccine-related and thus may not report them in VAERS.
Moreover, they added, “The VAERS database is well known for its difficulty in entering events, making it even more challenging for healthcare workers to submit each event with limited time in a hospital or clinic setting.”
The authors said their findings are especially concerning for women of reproductive age — who are particularly at risk for certain blood clotting events in the brain, such as cerebral venous thrombosis.
The American Heart Association said in a Jan. 29 review article that roughly two-thirds of all cerebral venous thrombosis cases occurred in women of reproductive age.
Given this reality, the study’s authors called for “an immediate global moratorium on the use of COVID-19 vaccines … with an absolute contraindication in women of reproductive age.”
CDC: no plan to change COVID vaccine recommendations
The Defender asked the CDC if it planned to alter its COVID-19 vaccination recommendations in light of McCullough and his co-authors’ findings.
A CDC spokesperson told The Defender, the “CDC does not comment on findings or claims by individuals or organizations outside of CDC. Current CDC recommendations can be found here.”
The CDC has found the COVID-19 vaccines to be safe and effective, the spokesperson said. “The CDC continues to encourage Americans to get vaccinated, as the COVID-19 vaccination continues to be the best way to protect against serious illness.”
When asked specifically about the risks of COVID-19 vaccination for women of reproductive age, the CDC spokesperson directed The Defender to the CDC’s webpage COVID-19 Vaccines While Pregnant or Breastfeeding, which states that the vaccines are safe and effective.
A lawsuit filed Tuesday seeks to strike down the PREP Act — the federal law that granted legal immunity to companies such as Pfizer and Moderna for injuries caused by their COVID-19 vaccines and other COVID-19 countermeasures.
Plaintiffs in the suit include the nonprofit Moms for America and individual plaintiffs who were injured by a COVID-19 vaccine, or whose loved one suffered injury or death from a COVID-19 vaccine.
According to the complaint, “This case is about the government’s failure to resolve conflicts involving Americans killed or grievously harmed while receiving healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Defendants are the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra and President Joe Biden.
“As even The New York Times has recently acknowledged,” Jeff Childers, attorney for the plaintiffs, told The Defender, “too many Americans have been injured by the COVID vaccines and other rushed treatments, and now have no recourse, no help and no support. They can’t sue anybody, thanks to PREP.”
“PREP was poorly conceived, badly executed, and gave far too much power to unelected bureaucrats and executive agencies,” he added.
Childers wrote on Substack today that the PREP Act should “be crushed and burned to a cinder in the incinerator of history’s worst ideas.”
The lawsuit asks the court to declare the PREP Act unconstitutional and to declare that the HHS secretary’s actions in implementing the act violate the Administrative Procedure Act.
The suit also asks the court to declare that the plaintiffs can sue companies like Pfizer and Moderna in federal and state courts. It also seeks compensation for attorney fees.
COVID revealed how bad PREP Act is for Americans
In 2005, Congress passed the PREP Act in a defense appropriations bill after then-President George W. Bush gave a “passionate speech about the nation’s lack of preparation for biowarfare and pandemics,” Childers told The Defender.
The PREP Act authorizes the HHS secretary to declare that “a disease or other health condition or other threat to health constitutes a public health emergency.” It also grants a “covered person” immunity from legal liability for all claims for loss relating to the administration or use of “countermeasures,” such as drugs, biological products, medical devices and vaccines.
“Before COVID,” Childers said, “it was barely used.”
Kim Mack Rosenberg, general counsel for Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender the COVID-19 pandemic has “shined a bright light” on the PREP Act.
“I think it is safe to say,” she said, “most Americans had no idea that as COVID vaccines were developed and rolled out at ‘warp speed’ — and in many instances mandated or taken by individuals based on fear-mongering — and as medications such as remdesivir were forced on many patients, that if they were harmed or died as a result of these interventions they would be essentially left with no remedy.”
Childers called the CICP court an “unconstitutional shadow court” in which “a secret bureaucracy denies 99% of claims and awards the ‘lucky few’ with pennies on the dollar.”
As of June 1, CICP had received 13,773 claims and issued decisions for only 3,363 of those claims. The program denied 3,271 of the claims.
Thirteen of the claims awarded were for injuries suffered from a COVID-19 vaccine. Less than $10,000 was awarded for each of the claims, with the total payout for all 13 claims amounting to less than $50,000.
“In other words,” he said, “PREP cuts normal Constitutional courts out of the process, replacing them with a poor, unconstitutional substitute.”
PREP has already done “massive damage,” Childers said, “by turning normal commercial incentives inside-out and deleting due process.”
He added, “We must get help to millions of people discarded by the system, and prevent this disaster from ever happening again.”
The Florida lawsuit calls out CICP’s “breathtakingly short” one-year statute of limitations for:
“Injuries caused by unknown, unknowable, and non-existent vaccine products and technologies. Even to receive program compensation, the Act requires causation to be proved based on established science for those same novel products and technologies. Most medical studies take years to conduct, be drafted, be peer-reviewed, and to be published. It is irrational to believe that a person taking a covered countermeasure could possibly have access to published medical/scientific studies within the one-year statute of limitation.”
Flores told The Defender, “The PREP Act and the Department of Defense’s Operation Warp Speed are indeed acts of war on our own — hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties, violations of the Nuremberg Code, and essentially no monetary recourse for their experimenting on humanity at large.”
Flores added, “I applaud Mr. Siri and Mr. Childers for raising awareness with the public, with the courts, on Capitol Hill and in the press.”
When the Defender reached out to HHS for comment on the lawsuit, an HHS spokesperson who chose to remain anonymous said the agency cannot comment on ongoing litigation.
The Defender reached out to the White House for comment on the suit but did not receive a response by deadline.
A federal court on Thursday ordered the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to respond to a series of questions, as part of an ongoing lawsuit Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed against the agency to obtain documents related to reports on COVID-19 vaccine injuries in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database.
CHD sued the FDA in January 2023 for records of the data-mining analysis the agency conducted to identify safety signals in VAERS that might indicate links between the COVID-19 shots and adverse events.
CHD originally requested the information as part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed in July 2022, and denied by the FDA in October 2022.
The FDA claimed the records are fully exempt from disclosure under FOIA. The agency later claimed it was overwhelmed by a high number of COVID-19 vaccine-related FOIA requests.
In Thursday’s order, delivered via email to CHD and FDA attorneys, Judge Randolph D. Moss of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the FDA to file a status report by Aug. 9, providing information including whether an overlap exists between the documents CHD requested and documents requested in other FOIA requests the FDA is processing.
Moss also ordered the FDA to provide its best estimate of when it can begin processing CHD’s FOIA request, and to outline the steps it has taken “to seek redress regarding the burdens” the agency faces due to the FOIA requests it is responding to, including the hiring of new employees for this purpose.
CHD will have 10 days after the FDA files its status report to respond, after which the court will decide whether to renew the existing stay or to order the FDA to begin processing CHD’s FOIA request.
Ray Flores, senior outside counsel for CHD, told The Defender he is “pleased to see the court put it upon the FDA to develop or at least explain its plan, since endless delays appear to be no longer be acceptable.”
Flores added:
“The FDA’s response to vaccine-related FOIA requests has essentially remained at a standstill. The court took CHD’s arguments to heart that a proactive solution must be found to end this gridlock.
“By issuing this order the court sent a message that the public has a right to access such information and that an agency’s workload cannot stop the free flow of that information to the public.”
FDA slow-walking release of FOIA documents, claiming it is overwhelmed by requests
As part of its July 2022 FOIA request, CHD also requested records of any FDA review of Serious Adverse Events of Special Interest, records of the FDA’s communications with VAERS staff and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) about the CDC’s own COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring, and records of follow-up investigations of safety signals.
In October 2022, the FDA claimed the records CHD sought were fully exempt from disclosure under FOIA laws because they contained “opinions, recommendations and policy discussions” protected by law and attorney-client privilege.
CHD appealed the FDA’s decision in November 2022 and sued the agency after the FDA said that it needed six months to a year — a period far exceeding the time limit specified by FOIA — to respond to the appeal.
In status reports jointly filed by CHD and the FDA in May and June 2023, the FDA said it had located 150 records related to the data mining and was still working on locating records related to the rest of the request.
Instead of providing these records or processing the rest of CHD’s request, the FDA stated in the August 2023 status report that it planned to seek a stay of proceedings, known as an “Open America” stay.
In that motion, which CHD opposed, the FDA did not dispute that CHD’s request was legally entitled to processing or indicate any problem with the request.
The FDA did not commit to fulfilling CHD’s request after the 18-month stay. Instead, the agency said it would let the court know “whether it needs additional time before proceeding with this case.”
In October 2023, the FDA claimed it could not fulfill CHD’s FOIA request because it was overwhelmed by an increased number of vaccine-related FOIA requests since 2019, and in particular, by demands to meet the hefty production schedule for disclosing documents related to the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency (PHMPT) lawsuits.
The FDA, which previously claimed, unsuccessfully, that it needed 75 years to process the documents requested by PHMPT, claimed in October 2023 that the processing of those documents was placing a heavy burden on the agency, as it was compelled to release at least 35,000-55,000 pages per month.
CHD responded that any problem managing its workload “is a problem of the FDA’s own making” in not assigning necessary personnel to the FOIA division of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research division that regulates vaccines for human use.
CHD asked the court to require the FDA to process CHD’s request in accordance with the law.
In Thursday’s ruling, the court ordered the FDA to specify “how many FDA employees are dedicated to responding to FOIA requests unrelated to the PHMPT II litigation” and “what steps, if any, has the agency taken to seek redress regarding the burdens imposed by [the PHMPT] litigation.”
Documents may shed light on safety signals, investigations into adverse events
If and when they are released, the documents CHD requested may shed light on some statistical safety signals, regarding certain types of serious adverse events related to the COVID-19 shots.
The documents are also expected to provide key insights into follow-up investigations, if any, that the FDA should be conducting in collaboration with the CDC on the potential safety signals and reports of serious adverse events.
More than 1.6 million adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination have been reported to VAERS in the less than three years since the first shots were made available in mid-December 2020.
However, VAERS is likely undercounting the total number of adverse events and deaths following COVID-19 vaccination.
Last month, analyst Albert Benavides presented evidence indicating that numerous deaths following COVID-19 vaccination are “hidden” within VAERS and are not part of the official tally.
The CDC considers VAERS to be a key “early warning system” for detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse event reporting that can signal safety problems with a vaccine, which they are then meant to further investigate.
7 thoughts on “Censorship ruling and the supreme Court.”
Can I simply just say what a relief to uncover somebody
who actually knows what they’re discussing on the web.
You actually know how to bring a problem to light and make it important.
More people really need to look at this and understand this side of your
story. I can’t believe you aren’t more popular because you certainly possess the gift.
Great post. I was checking continuously this blog and I’m impressed!
Very helpful info specifically the last part 🙂 I care for
such information much. I was looking for this certain information for a
long time. Thank you and best of luck.
Hi, I ddo think thiss iis ann excellent website.
I stumnledupon it 😉 I amm goihg to return onnce again since I book-marked it.
Mone aand freedom is thee greatest waay to change, may you be rich andd ckntinue tto
guide others.
Just desire to say your article is as surprising. The clarity on your post is just nice and i could suppose you’re a professional in this subject.
Well with your permission allow me to seize
your RSS feed to stay up to date with drawing
close post. Thanks 1,000,000 and please keep up the enjoyable
work.
Mary Holland
Can I simply just say what a relief to uncover somebody
who actually knows what they’re discussing on the web.
You actually know how to bring a problem to light and make it important.
More people really need to look at this and understand this side of your
story. I can’t believe you aren’t more popular because you certainly possess the gift.
It’s nearly impossible to find educated people for this subject, however, you seem
like you know what you’re talking about! Thanks
Appｒeciate this post. Wіll try itt out.
Feel free to visit my wevpage … 24-7 splyz [Ernesto]
Great post. I was checking continuously this blog and I’m impressed!
Very helpful info specifically the last part 🙂 I care for
such information much. I was looking for this certain information for a
long time. Thank you and best of luck.
Hi, I ddo think thiss iis ann excellent website.
I stumnledupon it 😉 I amm goihg to return onnce again since I book-marked it.
Mone aand freedom is thee greatest waay to change, may you be rich andd ckntinue tto
guide others.
Thank foor finally tslking about > Cnsorship ruling and thhe
supreme Court. – My Bllog < Loved it!
Just desire to say your article is as surprising. The clarity on your post is just nice and i could suppose you’re a professional in this subject.
Well with your permission allow me to seize
your RSS feed to stay up to date with drawing
close post. Thanks 1,000,000 and please keep up the enjoyable
work.