Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Judges Back Meta in Vaccine “Misinformation” Battle, Free Speech Advocates Vow to Fight On

By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | August 10, 2024

The 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled this week in favor of Meta, Facebook’s parent company. The case was brought forward by the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) over allegations that the social media giant violated free speech rights.

The lawsuit, initiated in August 2020 and later updated in December, claimed that Facebook, along with its CEO Mark Zuckerberg and two fact-checking entities, Science Feedback, and the Poynter Institute’s PolitiFact site, was complicit in an unconstitutional act of privately exercising governmental censorship. CHD alleges that Facebook, in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other federal institutions, is censoring content and discussions that the government is barred from suppressing under the First Amendment.

We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here.

The plaintiff specifically accused these sides of working in tandem to unfairly stifle valid attempts to discuss vaccine safety on Facebook, often through indirect yet sensorial measures like the use of warning labels. According to CHD, this type of arrangement between public entities and private corporations represents a breach of the First Amendment due to its perceived status as “state action.”

Despite these arguments, the 9th Circuit court concluded that CHD was not successful in meeting the initial requirement for state action, as the censorship inflicted was more a result of Meta’s content moderation policies and not any directive under federal law. Further, the court also asserted that CHD did not present any evidence of a binding agreement requiring Facebook to execute any particular action in response to misinformation about vaccines.

Although all judges did not share the same opinion, Circuit Judge Daniel P. Collins presented a partially dissenting viewpoint. He opined that the interactions between Meta and the Government involving the suppression of specific types of vaccine-related speech were substantial enough to evoke First Amendment considerations.

Expressing disappointment and worry, CHD CEO Mary Holland stated, “If we cannot stop the government’s joint action with Big Tech to censor unwanted information, our First Amendment is a pyrrhic victory — it means almost nothing in our real world of social media.” While she was pleased with the non-unanimous nature of the decision, Holland hinted at the possibility of appealing to the US Supreme Court after further review.

At the heart of the court battle, ongoing for almost four years, were claims, primarily leveled by CHD’s then-Chairman and Chief Executive Counsel, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., that tactics employed by the US Government to pressure Facebook into censoring vaccine “misinformation” were existential threats.

August 10, 2024 - Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , ,

2 Comments »

  1. “Despite these arguments, the 9th Circuit court concluded that CHD was not successful in meeting the initial requirement for state action, as the censorship inflicted was more a result of Meta’s content moderation policies and not any directive under federal law. Further, the court also asserted that CHD did not present any evidence of a binding agreement requiring Facebook to execute any particular action in response to misinformation about vaccines.”

    The ((Neocon Deep State)) sets the directive, and Judeofascist ((Zuckerberg)), using “private” Meta, carries it out. The Deep State then says, Oh, that was just a private corporation carrying out its own content moderation policies. It has nothing to do with State censorship.

    This is how kosher fascism works, people.

    Like

    Chris Moore's avatar Comment by Chris Moore | August 11, 2024 | Reply

  2. Two quick stories :

    Many years ago in a land far away, inflation was rising too quickly. Creating credit by financing major purchases was one of the causes. The government passed a law requiring 33% deposit on all furniture and goods ‘hire purchase’.

    However we could accept ‘used’ goods as a trade-in (‘throw away deposits’) and of course these goods were valued at exactly 33% of the (slightly [33%] adjusted) price of the purchase. The department of Commerce called in the big 5 who accounted for +80% of sales. {I was there as a technical advisor to one of the Marketing directors}

    “Just stop it” was the instruction.

    “It is not fair” said one of the companies, “the independent will carry on giving ‘throw away’ deposits.”

    “I don’t care about the independents, Just stop it.”

    “There is no law against it.” said one of the companies.

    “Do you really want me to pass a law against it?”

    End of discussion and end of ‘throw away deposits’ for the big 5.

    A friend had a contact that had a contact that could sell enormous amounts of gold to a foreign country bypassing very strict financial sanctions imposed by the UN. My friend contacted the finance ministry and after some finagling it was arranged that the gold would be (legally) smuggled into the buying foreign central bank. We are talking millions of dollars. My friend, as the initiator and intermediary asked for a very small honorarium (like 0.001%). He was visited (10 am) at his work place by two ‘suits’, “You are out of it.” they told him. “Not fair” he screamed.

    They handed him a ‘cell phone’ “dial 1” they said. His wife answered and told him that there were two men from the police sitting in his lounge with her. “Dial 2” they said. His 12 year old son answered telling him that two men came to the school and took him out of class and that he was sitting in their car.

    “You are out of it. End of story.”

    He was out of it.

    There is always Arkanicide for the very stubborn.

    Like

    peterjohnarnold's avatar Comment by peterjohnarnold | August 11, 2024 | Reply


Leave a reply to Chris Moore Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

« Previous | Next »