{"id":6519,"date":"2024-06-27T11:55:42","date_gmt":"2024-06-27T11:55:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/humanityandearth.com\/wp\/?p=6519"},"modified":"2024-09-08T13:08:07","modified_gmt":"2024-09-08T13:08:07","slug":"censorship-ruling-and-the-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/humanityandearth.com\/wp\/?p=6519","title":{"rendered":"Censorship ruling and the supreme Court."},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

A Louisiana district court ruled late Tuesday<\/a> that plaintiffs Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Children\u2019s Health Defense (CHD) have the legal right to sue the Biden administration for pressuring tech giants to censor their social media posts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The judgment came less than a month after a federal appeals court declined to rule on a preliminary injunction<\/a> prohibiting the administration from coordinating with social media companies until the district court decided the plaintiffs\u2019 standing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Standing is the legal<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Commenting on Tuesday\u2019s ruling in Kennedy v. Biden, Kim Mack Rosenberg, CHD general counsel, said that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana \u201creached what we believe is the correct conclusion with respect to standing for CHD and Mr. Kennedy.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps even \u201cmore importantly,\u201d she told The Defender<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\u201cJudge Terry Doughty carefully and clearly analyzed the law and facts and applied the framework from the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s recent decision in Murthy v. Missouri<\/a> regarding standing. The court also firmly found in plaintiffs\u2019 favor that plaintiffs had not waived \u2014 and indeed had affirmatively raised \u2014 direct censorship<\/a> claims in addition to listener claims.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

📣 GREAT NEWS!
Judge Terry Doughty of the Western District of Louisiana has found that @RobertKennedyJr<\/a>, CHD and Connie Sampognaro have standing in the lawsuit Kennedy v. Biden to continue our case in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

This means the Biden-Harris\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2014 Children\u2019s Health Defense (@ChildrensHD) August 20, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Facebook admitted suppressing truthful CHD social media posts<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his decision, Doughty summarized the evidence, outlining a series of specific instances where Kennedy and CHD were censored.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He also reviewed the three requirements for \u201cstanding,\u201d which are that a plaintiff must show that they suffered an injury, that the injury is traceable to the defendant\u2019s actions and that it can be redressed through a favorable decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CHD CEO Mary Holland said Doughty found that the government\u2019s conduct is traceable to direct statements and instructions to social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram and YouTube.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFurther, the judge found that a preliminary injunction, which mandates that the government stop censoring plaintiffs through social media, would redress their injuries,\u201d Holland said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Doughty wrote that Kennedy and CHD \u201cwere in positions contrary to Government positions on COVID-19<\/a>, including mask mandates<\/a>, vaccine mandates<\/a>, vaccine injuries<\/a>, lockdowns<\/a>, etc.,\u201d that Kennedy was identified by the Center for Countering Digital Hate as part of the so-called \u201cDisinformation Dozen<\/a>,\u201d and that CHD was named as a tool for spreading \u201canti-vaccine messages.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201cvaccine misinformation,\u201d regardless of whether the information was true.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, in one email Clark Humphrey, a member of the Biden administration\u2019s COVID-19 response team, requested Twitter remove one of Kennedy\u2019s tweets. The tech giant complied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFacebook admitted that although the CHD\u2019s posts did not violate its policies, it would suppress content that originated from CHD,\u201d Doughty wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He cited reports written by organizations, such as the Virality Project<\/a>, which named Kennedy and CHD specifically, flagging them with \u201ctickets\u201d to report COVID-19 misinformation to the social media giants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He also cited the fact that Kennedy\u2019s Instagram account was suspended and CHD continues to be deplatformed from Instagram, Facebook and YouTube \u2014 showing that CHD faces ongoing injury, a requirement for standing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThere 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,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given censorship of the Donald Trump presidential campaign on social media, and evidence presented in a declaration by Brigid Rasmussen<\/a>, the chief of Kennedy\u2019s presidential campaign, stating that content favorable to the campaign<\/a> had been censored on social media, Doughty ruled that Kennedy faces a \u201csubstantial risk\u201d that government defendants will restrict his speech in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Doughty ruled that the third plaintiff in the case, Connie Sampognaro, a Louisiana healthcare professional, who argued she was deprived of the \u201cright to listen\u201d to censored organizations did not have standing. Doughty said Sampognaro did not show specific instances of content moderation that caused her harm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018Undisputed that CHD has satisfied its burden of showing injury\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In June, the Supreme Court struck down<\/a> a similar injunction against the Biden administration in a related case, Murthy v. Missouri<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court ruled the plaintiffs \u2014 two states and five social media users \u2014 did not have standing because they couldn\u2019t show \u201cspecific causation\u201d for any instance of content moderation tied to the government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court also said the plaintiffs couldn\u2019t demonstrate a substantial risk that \u201cin the near future they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a Government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The injunction issued in Kennedy v. Biden<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After the Supreme Court overturned the Murthy v. Missouri injunction, the Biden administration appealed the injunction<\/a> in Kennedy v. Biden to the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, citing the same argument they used in Murthy v. Missouri \u2014 that the plaintiffs lacked standing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 5th Circuit sent the case back to the District Court to rule on standing. In its ruling yesterday, Doughty wrote<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis Court finds that there is significant evidence showing Kennedy was directly censored in the past, and there is likely a substantial risk that Kennedy\u2019s content will be restricted in the future because of the actions of at least one of the Government Defendants. \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt is undisputed that CHD has satisfied its burden of showing injury in fact for much of the same reasons that Kennedy has.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Defender on occasion posts content related to Children\u2019s Health Defense\u2019s nonprofit mission that features Mr. Kennedy\u2019s 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.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Censorship in the internet, big media and artificial intelligence.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n