Robert F. Kennedy Jr. filed a class action lawsuit against President Biden, Dr. Anthony Fauci and top administration officials and agencies, alleging they “waged a systematic, concerted campaign” to compel the nation’s three largest social media companies to censor constitutionally protected speech.

submitted by Orangutan from childrenshealthdefense.org

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]dicknipples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

The government did not "induce, encourage, or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish."

This is a frivolous case.

childrenshealthdefense.org is known for its disinformation and extremist bias: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/childrens-health-defense/

[–]pattis 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The government did not "induce, encourage, or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish."

It's interesting that you can speak on behalf of the entire government.

[–]dicknipples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

read the so-called lawsuit (linked in the article)

leave me alone

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]dicknipples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    stop crying and read reports before you comment

    [–]thoughtcriminal 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    I'm interested in why you think so. It seems pretty clear based on the evidence from the Twitter files that they did.

    There are a number of examples, but the most egregious to me is the EIP which was later renamed the Virality Project. Multiple high level government agencies worked directly with this entity to suggest what to censor and what actions to take on the speech of US citizens. These requests were then forwarded to Twitter, and invariably acted on. In other words, the government used a private entity as a proxy to subvert the 1st amendment and censor legal (and even factually correct) speech.

    The Virality Project was essentially absorbed into Twitter to the extent that they even had direct access to Twitter Jira boards (work tracking/ticketing system). This is not at all dissimilar to how the state controls businesses in China, it's only slightly more complicated due to that pesky constitution we have.

    In many cases the government didn't even bother to use a proxy layer through a private entity. They just went directly to Twitter/Facebook/Google and told them what to censor or flag. There are a number of examples of this as well.

    If the highest government agencies and officials working directly (or indirectly through proxy) with Twitter to censor legal speech of Americans isn't a violation of the 1st amendment, what do you think is? How does this not amount to inducement or encouragement?

    [–]EternalSunset 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    He's a shill that constantly sides with the US deep state and with the democratic party on every chance he gets. Just ignore him.

    [–]thoughtcriminal 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Yeah should have looked at who I was replying to first lol

    [–]dicknipples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Excellent examples

    But -

    clue #1 is childrenshealthdefense.org and its history of spreading misinformation. Their credibility is nil.

    clue #2 The 120 page documents makes numerous claims without noting the evidence for those claims

    clue #3 The same document lists previous legal cases, claiming that they relate to the present complaing, but without providing the necessary evidence for those claims

    clue #4 There are many claims of activities at Twitter that often have no links to those Twitter events (perhaps the evidence will be in an addendum or appendix that is not in the complaint document)

    clue #5 In all of the 470 arguments, there are claims that do not include corroborating information - and instead focus on one claim at a time, without noting the way in which that claim is known

    clue #6 The US government has alway engaged with news media and social media in many different ways. Thus there is precedent for government actions to reduce the spread of misinformation.

    If this case is rejected (as I think it will), it can be appealed. But there are also federal laws against frivolous lawsuits, which this is.

    [–]pattis 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Yeah sure they have an extremist bias of course they do they are against vaccine mandates it's no wonder you don't like them

    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/protecting-our-future/health-freedom/?itm_term=home