As the opinion seemed to indicate that even assuming coercion by the government, plaintiffs did not have standing as they could not show evidence they were in some legal sense harmed. But what about all the social media users who were deprived of reading what the plaintiff's wrote on social media due to the government's ongoing coercion? Aren't millions harmed simply by being deprived from hearing arguments and facts that dissent from the government narrative? Isn't that the real harm?
This is huge for me. The governments lied. They had no idea whether these shots were either safe or effective. They lied to us about herd immunity. Doctors were paraded before us supporting these unfounded claims. They used terror tactics to get us to get the shot. Etc etc. but, what we were not allowed to hear was the information from independent scientists, doctors or statisticians many who warned about these shots. If an opposing warning succeeded in getting a message out they were maligned, ridiculed and discounted. Doctor Bryam Bridle immunologist vaccinologist here in Canada. Sadly, I was swayed by the negative press he got. I am so angry that we were not allowed to hear warnings about these shots from independent scientists. I am paying personally for this dictatorial misinformation. And to this day the same deceit is in full swing. People were harmed, people died and are still dying and getting diseases. The court decision was based on the government knowing the truth, that which will benefit society. The court is clueless about the massive harms governments have done to people.
I think the claim is that social media companies may have done it on their own if the FBI hadn't asked, and that is not a violation of 1st amendment. It is a weak argument but it is kind of what they do when they want a ruling that benefits government.
Millions of people are effectively silenced and it was the ones that were telling the truth. It is a matter of finding the right angle that they can't stop.
As I understand it, SCOTUS didn't say people weren't being censored by Social Media, they were told that they didn't have standing because social media is not bound by the first amendment and they may have wanted to censor those people anyway. I feel like the case proved that the government paid and asked and that is enough. Clearly they are pressured to rule in favor of the government and allow them to violate the 1st amendment.
The reality is that social media monopolies like facebook are censoring experts that are speaking the truth and there is no recourse. You can't debate the issue. Social media fact checkers are claiming to be the arbiters of truth, but no one can tell them they are wrong. If experts could embarrass them for speaking foolishly, the problem would solve itself. Can we come at this from a different angle and say if they are a near monopoly that they should be bound by the 1st amendment as well. They are essentially able to gag the people and deprive them of speech. This has resulted in deaths which is when the government is supposed to act (to allow debate, not silence it).
That is the courts reasoning, they miss the fact however that the government has immense power over all social media companies as their regulator in chief, so any requests to censor may be obeyed out of fear of repercussions, and therefore the government needs to disengage from influencing speech on media platforms. This is what constitutes the first amendment violation imo.
Yes. True. However it is interesting that minds.com is a competitor to facebook that has never censored anyone. You can post whatever you want without outside influence.
Thanks for the link Mike, signing up. I have a parallel effort with integrally.one, which is a dialogical sense making platform I’ve been building with a small team, we are going live this summer.
Many thanks to Dr. Kheriaty and Dr. Bhattacharya, and their advocacy for free speech in America at SCOTUS. Their work has been and continues to be crucial for preserving our First Amendment rights in America. My question for upcoming podcast: If the plaintiffs involved in the SCOTUS case did not have "standing", what value is having the First Amendment anyways? In my opinion, all those whose voices/opinions were suppressed by the government around Covid topics, were harmed and absolutely did have "standing". I look forward to the discussion. Thank you again for speaking up for our American citizens.
QUESTION: What is the difference between lack of standing to get a prelim injunction and lack of standing to file the suit? Seems the suit with current plaintiffs continues so the lack of standing was only for the injunction purpose?
What about the thousands of deaths in VAERS? If folks had access to your expertise exemplified in your posts, they could have discerned the government’s lies early on, not fallen for the safe and effective lie, and would be alive today.
Jay and Aaron, Please check out this video below from Professor Jed Rubenfeld, Yale Law School Professor, Constitutional Scholar, Lawyer. It is extremely helpful in understanding the ruling and provides some encouragement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5kIm347Zj8
How can the lawsuit be continue now ?, can you find standing with the current plaintiffs and if not can you add plaintiffs and continue it ? , my impresión is that some superior court judges were afraid of being seen as anti government, so they found an excuse to delay the real ruling , and it will be a crime not to pursue it !!!!! What is your new strategy ??????
How did Barrett even get to ‘plaintiff did not demonstrate standing’? Your First Amendment rights were violated when Twitter silenced you. Twitter is a public platform on the internet that enjoys Section 230 protections, yet Twitter acted like a PUBLISHER when they downgraded your accounts. What the f**k? How can they have it both ways?!?!
Hi Jay, Steve Everist with Covid-age.com. Let me know if you are looking for parties with standing, millions spent on our project to “risk stratify our return to normalcy”, as you know we were in market March of 2020, and worked closely with Dr David Katz (see https://davidkatzmd.com/is-our-fight-against-coronavirus-worse-than-the-disease/ ) and sold access to South Dakota before Trump Derangement Syndrome politicized the Science. And before the government, by unconstitutionally influencing social media, censored you and others arguing for our approach to inform and empower individuals to know their risks and those of their close contacts so they can focus protection on the high risk in a free market of risk mitigation strategies. Sweden and South Dakota’s approach plus more focused protection.
As the opinion seemed to indicate that even assuming coercion by the government, plaintiffs did not have standing as they could not show evidence they were in some legal sense harmed. But what about all the social media users who were deprived of reading what the plaintiff's wrote on social media due to the government's ongoing coercion? Aren't millions harmed simply by being deprived from hearing arguments and facts that dissent from the government narrative? Isn't that the real harm?
This is huge for me. The governments lied. They had no idea whether these shots were either safe or effective. They lied to us about herd immunity. Doctors were paraded before us supporting these unfounded claims. They used terror tactics to get us to get the shot. Etc etc. but, what we were not allowed to hear was the information from independent scientists, doctors or statisticians many who warned about these shots. If an opposing warning succeeded in getting a message out they were maligned, ridiculed and discounted. Doctor Bryam Bridle immunologist vaccinologist here in Canada. Sadly, I was swayed by the negative press he got. I am so angry that we were not allowed to hear warnings about these shots from independent scientists. I am paying personally for this dictatorial misinformation. And to this day the same deceit is in full swing. People were harmed, people died and are still dying and getting diseases. The court decision was based on the government knowing the truth, that which will benefit society. The court is clueless about the massive harms governments have done to people.
wow. i’m so sorry. censorship harms everyone.
I think the claim is that social media companies may have done it on their own if the FBI hadn't asked, and that is not a violation of 1st amendment. It is a weak argument but it is kind of what they do when they want a ruling that benefits government.
Millions of people are effectively silenced and it was the ones that were telling the truth. It is a matter of finding the right angle that they can't stop.
right and we’ll never know if they would have done it on their own. the government’s actions blurs that line
As I understand it, SCOTUS didn't say people weren't being censored by Social Media, they were told that they didn't have standing because social media is not bound by the first amendment and they may have wanted to censor those people anyway. I feel like the case proved that the government paid and asked and that is enough. Clearly they are pressured to rule in favor of the government and allow them to violate the 1st amendment.
The reality is that social media monopolies like facebook are censoring experts that are speaking the truth and there is no recourse. You can't debate the issue. Social media fact checkers are claiming to be the arbiters of truth, but no one can tell them they are wrong. If experts could embarrass them for speaking foolishly, the problem would solve itself. Can we come at this from a different angle and say if they are a near monopoly that they should be bound by the 1st amendment as well. They are essentially able to gag the people and deprive them of speech. This has resulted in deaths which is when the government is supposed to act (to allow debate, not silence it).
That is the courts reasoning, they miss the fact however that the government has immense power over all social media companies as their regulator in chief, so any requests to censor may be obeyed out of fear of repercussions, and therefore the government needs to disengage from influencing speech on media platforms. This is what constitutes the first amendment violation imo.
Yes. True. However it is interesting that minds.com is a competitor to facebook that has never censored anyone. You can post whatever you want without outside influence.
Thanks for the link Mike, signing up. I have a parallel effort with integrally.one, which is a dialogical sense making platform I’ve been building with a small team, we are going live this summer.
Just watched this video about ad influence on censorship.
https://vigilantfox.news/p/watch-ben-shapiro-tear-into-censorship?utm_source=podcast-email&publication_id=975571&post_id=146473704&utm_campaign=email-play-on-substack&utm_content=watch_now_gif&r=17c67d&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Many thanks to Dr. Kheriaty and Dr. Bhattacharya, and their advocacy for free speech in America at SCOTUS. Their work has been and continues to be crucial for preserving our First Amendment rights in America. My question for upcoming podcast: If the plaintiffs involved in the SCOTUS case did not have "standing", what value is having the First Amendment anyways? In my opinion, all those whose voices/opinions were suppressed by the government around Covid topics, were harmed and absolutely did have "standing". I look forward to the discussion. Thank you again for speaking up for our American citizens.
QUESTION: What is the difference between lack of standing to get a prelim injunction and lack of standing to file the suit? Seems the suit with current plaintiffs continues so the lack of standing was only for the injunction purpose?
What about the thousands of deaths in VAERS? If folks had access to your expertise exemplified in your posts, they could have discerned the government’s lies early on, not fallen for the safe and effective lie, and would be alive today.
Jay and Aaron, Please check out this video below from Professor Jed Rubenfeld, Yale Law School Professor, Constitutional Scholar, Lawyer. It is extremely helpful in understanding the ruling and provides some encouragement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5kIm347Zj8
How can the lawsuit be continue now ?, can you find standing with the current plaintiffs and if not can you add plaintiffs and continue it ? , my impresión is that some superior court judges were afraid of being seen as anti government, so they found an excuse to delay the real ruling , and it will be a crime not to pursue it !!!!! What is your new strategy ??????
Which individuals involved in the lawsuit have standing to continue the
To continue the lawsuit. Alex Berenson commented he has standing with his own lawsuit against Twitter.
How did Barrett even get to ‘plaintiff did not demonstrate standing’? Your First Amendment rights were violated when Twitter silenced you. Twitter is a public platform on the internet that enjoys Section 230 protections, yet Twitter acted like a PUBLISHER when they downgraded your accounts. What the f**k? How can they have it both ways?!?!
Hi Jay, Steve Everist with Covid-age.com. Let me know if you are looking for parties with standing, millions spent on our project to “risk stratify our return to normalcy”, as you know we were in market March of 2020, and worked closely with Dr David Katz (see https://davidkatzmd.com/is-our-fight-against-coronavirus-worse-than-the-disease/ ) and sold access to South Dakota before Trump Derangement Syndrome politicized the Science. And before the government, by unconstitutionally influencing social media, censored you and others arguing for our approach to inform and empower individuals to know their risks and those of their close contacts so they can focus protection on the high risk in a free market of risk mitigation strategies. Sweden and South Dakota’s approach plus more focused protection.