Hind Rajab Foundation chief says his resolve ‘unchanged’ after Israeli minister’s death threat

Chairperson of pro-Palestine advocacy organization Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF), Dyab Abou Jahjah (Photo via social media)
Press TV – January 8, 2025
The chairperson of pro-Palestine advocacy organization Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF) has stated that his resolve remains unchanged after an Israeli minister made a death threat against him after the group’s complaints in courts around the world against Israeli soldiers for committing war crimes in Gaza.
“When I decided to pursue justice against Israeli war criminals, I understood the consequences. As a father, husband, and teacher, this decision was not an easy one. My responsibilities to my family and my students weigh heavily on me. In recent days, following Israeli threats, I’ve taken time to reflect deeply once more. My resolve remains unchanged,” Dyab Abou Jahjah wrote in a post published on his X account on Tuesday.
He added, “After witnessing this genocide, there is no turning back. In the face of such grave injustice, the perpetrators must be held accountable. Justice is the only path forward—not revenge, not violence, but justice through the courts of law. International and national legal frameworks must prevail. This is not only for the victims, but for all of us and for future generations.”
The human rights activist pointed out that the genocide or the killing of children must not become normalized, stressing that “This pursuit of accountability and justice must and will continue, come what may.”
Abou Jahjah’s comments came after Israeli minister of diaspora affairs and combating antisemitism, Amichai Chikli, made a death threat against him.
“Hello to our human rights activist. Watch your pager,” Chikli wrote on X in an address addressed to the activist.
The Israeli minister was making reference to the Tel Aviv regime’s simultaneous explosions of hundreds of pagers and communication devices belonging to the Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah across Lebanon last September.
The series of explosions left dozens of people killed and injured at least 2,750 others wounded, according to security services and the Lebanese health ministry.
The Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF) has filed several complaints in various countries against Israeli forces who participated in the genocidal campaign in Gaza. It has also lodged a complaint with the International Criminal Court (ICC) against 1,000 Israeli soldiers.
The foundation is named after Hind Rajab, a symbol of Gaza’s suffering.
On January 29 last year, Hind had been traveling in a car with her uncle, his wife and their three children, fleeing fighting in the neighborhood of Tel Al-Hawa in Gaza City, when they came under Israeli fire.
Trapped in the bullet-ridden vehicle and surrounded by her dead relatives, Hind begged for help from the Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS).
Two first responders, Yousef Zeino and Ahmed al-Madhoun, were deployed in a bid to save Hind, but the Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS) soon lost contact with them, along with the little girl.
On February 10, the bodies of Hind and her relatives were found lying in the car. Just meters away, a burned-out ambulance was found with the remains of the two paramedics who tried to save the girl.
Israel launched the genocidal war on Gaza on October 7, 2023. The war has so far killed at least 45,885 Palestinians, mostly women and children, and injured 109,196 others.
After Jordan, Carrefour halts operations in Oman over BDS campaign
Al Mayadeen | January 8, 2025
French multinational retail giant Carrefour has announced the suspension of its operations in Oman, just two months after closing all its branches in Jordan in response to a global anti-“Israel” campaign denouncing the occupation entity’s decades-long crimes against Palestinians.
Carrefour, one of the largest supermarket chains worldwide, confirmed its decision through a statement on its official Instagram account on Tuesday: “Effective from January 7, 2025, Carrefour operations will be discontinued in the Sultanate of Oman.”
This announcement follows a similar decision on November 5, 2024, when the company declared a complete halt to its operations in Jordan.
The closures were attributed to significant financial losses and reputational damage resulting from a widespread and creative boycott campaign. Majid Al Futtaim, which holds the exclusive rights to operate Carrefour in the West Asia region and the Arab world, publicized the decision.
The campaign, led by the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) as part of the global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, began in December 2022 in response to the French global retail group’s complicity in Israeli crimes against Palestinians.
The #BoycottCarrefour campaign has gained momentum over the past two years, with protests staged outside Carrefour outlets globally, despite efforts in some countries to suppress such activism.
Calls for a boycott intensified further following the outset of “Israel’s” war on Gaza, with critics accusing Carrefour branches of supporting war crimes by providing gift packages to Israeli soldiers and running donation campaigns to support soldiers involved in the war on the Palestinian enclave.
Additionally, Carrefour has reportedly signed agreements with Israeli technology firms and banks implicated in human rights violations and war crimes against Palestinians.
Futtaim Group’s semi-annual report for 2024 revealed a 47% decline in retail sector profits, citing reduced consumer confidence due to the “geopolitical conflict in the region.”
The report highlighted the impact of the extensive boycott campaign, which has gained traction across the region, from Jordan to Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates.
Israel blocks UN probe into alleged sexual violence during 7 October attack
MEMO | January 8, 2025
Israel has denied the United Nations permission to investigate sexual violence allegedly committed by Hamas during the 7 October cross-border infiltration, due to concerns that it could also involve investigating sexual violence against Palestinians in Israeli detention facilities.
Pramila Patten, the UN’s Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, sought authorisation to investigate the allegations against Hamas. However, she insisted that access to Israeli detention centres to probe allegations against Israeli soldiers was a necessary condition.
According to Haaertz, Israel rejected this request. Patten has called on Israel to sign a framework agreement with the UN, committing to measures to combat sexual violence in conflicts.
Patten’s office has confirmed plans to explore a future mission to the region, following invitations from both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government. “The Office is exploring a future mission to the region after receiving an invitation from the Palestinian Authority regarding reports of conflict-related sexual violence against Palestinians as well as outreach by the Government of Israel for a follow-up visit on the 7 October attacks and their aftermath.”
However, Patten’s office has warned that Israel’s refusal to allow UN investigations into alleged crimes attributed to it could have negative repercussions. Representatives from Israel’s Women’s Network, who met with Patten’s team in New York last month, reported being warned that this stance could lead to Israel being added to the UN’s blacklist of entities responsible for sexual violence in conflicts, while Hamas might remain off the list.
This comes after Israeli authorities admitted that no allegations of rape or sexual assault have been filed from the 7 October cross-border infiltration by Palestinian resistance factions, despite extensive investigations.
Moran Gaz, a former lead prosecutor in Israel’s Southern District Prosecutor’s Office and member of Team 7.10, disclosed the findings in an interview with Ynet.
In March 2023, United Nations experts had already debunked similar allegations, concluding they were either unverified or proven false. Similarly, other gruesome claims, such as babies being beheaded or burned in ovens, were widely discredited but continued to circulate in political rhetoric.
Pro-independence leader rebuffs Trump’s plan to buy Greenland

Greenland’s natural resources minister Mute Egede in his office in Nuuk, Greenland, on May 4, 2017. © Julia Waeschenbach / Getty Images
RT | January 8, 2025
Greenland’s pro-independence leader has rejected US President-elect Donald Trump’s proposal to buy the Arctic self-governing island from Denmark.
Trump has revived his old idea of acquiring the mineral-rich territory as he is preparing to assume the presidency on January 20. “Greenland is an incredible place, and the people will benefit tremendously if, and when, it becomes part of our nation,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform recently, vowing to “protect it, and cherish it, from a very vicious outside world.”
Greenland’s prime minister, Mute Bourup Egede, who has been campaigning for the island’s independence, reiterated that Greenland should not belong to any foreign power.
“Let me repeat – Greenland belongs to the people of Greenland. Our future and fight for independence is our business,” Egede wrote on Facebook on Tuesday.
“While others, including Danes and Americans, are entitled to their opinions, we should not be caught up in the hysteria and external pressures distract us from our path. The future is ours and ours to shape,” he added. Egede reaffirmed that his government was working towards Greenland’s eventual break with Denmark.
The former Danish colony of around 57,000 people has been a self-governing territory since 1979. In 2009, Greenland was granted the right to declare independence through a referendum.
Trump first floated the idea of purchasing Greenland in 2019, when it was rejected by the local government and officials in Copenhagen. The president-elect’s son, Donald Trump Jr., made an unannounced trip to the island on Tuesday. “Greenland loves America and Trump!!! Incredible people with an equally awesome reception,” he wrote on X.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has said that she welcomes US investment in Greenland, but stopped short of endorsing Trump’s renewed interest in the island. “The starting point of the government is very clear: the future of Greenland should be decided in Greenland. Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders,” she told TV 2.
“The United States is Denmark’s most important ally. Today’s discussion does not change that,” the prime minister added.
Trump has floated other bold foreign policy ideas, such as transforming Canada into America’s “51st state” and reclaiming US control over the Panama Channel. The leaders of Canada and Panama have rejected these proposals.
Biden to Rush Final ‘Substantial’ Weapons Transfer to Ukraine
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | January 7, 2025
Before President Joe Biden exits the White House later this month, he is planning a massive final aid package for Ukraine. The Pentagon will attempt to rush the weapons to Kiev before President-elect Donald Trump takes office.
Two defense officials said the new package would be announced on Thursday during a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group at an American military base in Germany, the Associated Press reported. The sources added that the weapons will come directly from US military stockpiles, and will be fast-tracked to Ukraine before Trump’s second term begins in less than two weeks.
The rush to provide Kiev with a “substantial” arms shipment before Trump returns to power appears aimed at undermining the president-elect’s stated goal of bringing the war in Ukraine to an end.
Since the American people voted for Trump to be the next president, the current administration has significantly escalated support for Kiev, even allowing Ukrainian forces to use long-range American missiles against targets inside Russia. Biden has also signed off on billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine since the war kicked off in early 2022.
The sources did not tell the AP how large the final package would be, though there is about $4 billion in congressionally authorized funding for Ukraine. The officials indicated that the Trump administration will have “more than a couple billion” in funding to send weapons to Ukraine.
While Trump pledged to bring the war to a close on the campaign trail, some incoming officials have stated that he intends to continue the arms shipments once he returns to power.
Since the start of the war, Washington has approved over $180 billion in aid to Ukraine; however, Kiev insists it has received only a fraction of that sum.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky elaborated during a recent podcast interview with Lex Friedman, saying “If we take, for example, money from the United States of America. During all this time of the war, around $177 billion have been voted for or decided upon, $177 billion.” He continued, “Let’s be honest. We have not received half of this money.”
The White House has announced at least $60 billion in military aid along with more than $100 billion in other forms of assistance, while America’s NATO allies have committed an additional $60 billion-plus in military support for the Ukrainian war effort.
YouTube CEO Neal Mohan Says YouTube is a “Bastion of Free Speech”
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | January 6, 2025
If you believe Neil Mohan, YouTube’s CEO, the platform is a modern-day Agora—a self-described “bastion of free speech” where the world’s most pressing debates thrive. Though, “just because it’s an open platform, it doesn’t mean that anything goes,” Mohan told The Financial Times in the last week. Translation: Free speech is alive and well—until it isn’t. Because on YouTube, the marketplace of ideas comes with a bouncer, a velvet rope, and an ever-expanding list of banned words and topics.
This month, YouTube is eager to remind everyone it’s “committed” to free expression, a sentiment as convincing as a fast-food chain promising “health-conscious dining.” Over the last five years, the platform has turbocharged its content moderation policies, leaning on AI overlords and human censors to police conversations ranging from vaccine skepticism to who gets to call a virus a “lab leak.”
It’s a delicate balance, they claim—one requiring the finesse of a trapeze artist. But if the past is any guide, the only thing YouTube’s balancing act reliably delivers is corporate doublespeak and a pile of censored creators.
Moderation or Muting?
Mohan, the relatively new captain of YouTube’s Titanic, insists that the company welcomes “broad views” but won’t tolerate “anything goes.” Consider their “community guidelines,” a vague, shape-shifting set of rules that could find your grandma’s knitting tutorial in violation if it dares question Big Pharma.
Behind this rhetoric is an algorithmic enforcement machine programmed to flag, demonetize, or outright remove content at lightning speed—accuracy be damned. And when the AI overlords fumble, the human moderators step in, wielding their own biases like blunt instruments.
Critics, including banned creators, point out that YouTube’s moderation seems to skew conveniently in one direction. Questioning the CDC? Misinformation. Broadcasting claims about ivermectin? Censored. But when a mainstream outlet gets caught peddling unverified or downright wrong information, it’s business as usual.
The COVID-19 Information Iron Curtain
Of course, nothing showcases YouTube’s free speech schizophrenia better than its pandemic policies. To combat “medical misinformation,” the platform instituted a strict purge of dissenting voices, silencing everyone from epidemiologists to concerned moms armed with anecdotal evidence and Facebook memes.
Let’s not forget the lab leak theory, a hypothesis once relegated to tinfoil hat territory. When early adopters of the theory dared to post about it, their content was struck down faster than you could say “gain-of-function research.” Fast forward a couple of years and the lab-leak theory is now a “credible hypothesis,” endorsed by experts and even government agencies.
Oops.
But don’t expect an apology or even acknowledgment from YouTube for playing arbiter of acceptable science. They’ve quietly updated policies and moved on, leaving censored creators wondering why their “misinformation” turned out to be, well, information.
Advertiser-Friendly Speech Only
The real driver of YouTube’s overzealous content policing, of course, is money. Back in 2017, a wave of advertiser boycotts over “hateful” and “controversial” content sent the platform scrambling. The solution? Stricter guidelines are needed to ensure that only the most sanitized, brand-safe content remains.
While no one would argue against booting child exploitation, the crackdown didn’t stop there. It extended into politically sensitive areas, conveniently targeting independent creators and smaller voices while leaving corporate media to do as they pleased.
What’s worse is the blatant double standard. Want to critique vaccine mandates or discuss alternative COVID treatments? Good luck. But if you’re a major network spouting unverified claims about weapons of mass destruction or “imminent threats,” go right ahead. After all, those ad dollars won’t chase themselves.
YouTube’s Legacy of Censorship
Mohan’s lofty rhetoric about fostering “broad views” might play well in interviews, but the reality on the ground is clear: YouTube’s commitment to free speech is as reliable as a politician’s campaign promise. The platform has repeatedly chosen corporate image over open discourse, advertisers over authenticity, and control over community.
And yet, it continues to parade as a defender of free expression. Perhaps Mohan and his team truly believe in their own doublespeak. Or maybe they’re banking on the fact that most users will never notice the glaring contradictions. Either way, YouTube’s hypocrisy isn’t an accident—it’s a business model.
The next time you hear Neil Mohan wax poetic about “free speech,” remember this: On YouTube, freedom comes with conditions, and the only real winners are the ones writing the checks.
Louisiana Man Who Had Bird Flu Dies — But Cause of Death Is Unclear
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 7, 2025
A Louisiana man in his 60s who was hospitalized with the first severe case of bird flu in the U.S. has died, the Louisiana Department of Health announced Monday. According to STAT News, it’s the first bird flu-related death in the U.S. — and all of North America.
The man, who has not been named, was older than 65 and had underlying medical conditions not specified in the health department’s announcement. He was hospitalized with severe respiratory illness after contracting the H5N1 bird flu virus last month from exposure to wild birds and a backyard flock of birds.
Louisiana health officials didn’t provide details about when the man died or what treatment he received. According to the health department, no other bird flu cases have been identified in Louisiana.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) maintains its position that bird flu poses a low risk to public health.
In a statement published by The Washington Post, the CDC said, “While tragic, a death from H5N1 bird flu in the United States is not unexpected because of the known potential for infection with these viruses to cause severe illness and death.”
According to STAT News, 67 cases of bird flu have been recorded in the U.S. since last year. The Post reported that in almost all cases, the patients experienced “mild illnesses” such as respiratory symptoms or pink eye, and all except the Louisiana man recovered. Most who became ill are poultry or dairy farmworkers.
Media reporting on bird flu ‘reminiscent of the fearmongering’ during COVID
Mainstream media has widely attributed the Louisiana man’s death to bird flu, but experts who spoke with The Defender struck a note of caution.
“We do not have details on the type of hospital he was in for many weeks, treatment received, and what the ultimate cause of death was in his case,” cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough told The Defender.
“This is not the same as saying the patient died of bird flu. [The Louisiana Health Department] conspicuously stops short of making that claim. If the health department reporting the case is not willing to declare bird flu to be the cause of death, it is irresponsible for anyone else to draw this conclusion,” internal medicine physician Dr. Clayton J. Baker told The Defender.
Baker said such messaging on the part of some media outlets “is reminiscent of the fearmongering that was so prevalent during COVID-19, where numerous patients who actually died ‘with COVID’ were classified as ‘COVID deaths.’”
Epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher told The Defender that, because there are few details about the Louisiana man’s death and the underlying conditions he previously experienced, “it’s entirely possible that this patient died because of his other conditions, with bird flu infection pushing him over the edge.”
“Regardless, we can expect the biopharmaceutical complex to use this case as a tool to fear-monger and push for bird flu vaccinations,” Hulscher said.
Speaking on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Dec. 29, 2024, Dr. Leana Wen, the former commissioner of the Baltimore City Health Department and a professor of public health at George Washington University, called for more testing — and for the Biden administration to approve the bird flu vaccine before leaving office.
“There actually is a vaccine developed already against H5N1,” Wen said. “The Biden administration has contracted with manufacturers to make almost 5 million doses of the vaccine. However, they have not asked the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] to authorize the vaccine.”
Dr. Meryl Nass, founder of Door to Freedom, questioned the need for a bird flu vaccine. “Why would you use a vaccine in humans that has not been shown to work or be safe, for a disease that has only killed one elderly sick person and does not spread person-to-person?” Nass asked?
In October 2024, New York City health officials held a tabletop simulation of a bird flu outbreak.
Existing bird flu vaccines not designed for current bird flu variant
According to CNN, a genetic analysis the CDC performed last month determined that the virus that infected the Louisiana man mutated, enhancing its ability to infect the upper airways of humans.
“Those same changes were not seen in the birds the person had been exposed to, officials said, indicating that they had developed in the person after they were infected,” CNN reported.
According to the Post, “Bird flu viruses normally attach to a cell receptor that is rare in human upper airways,” making it difficult for most strains of bird flu to spread from person to person.
The mutated version of the virus found in the Louisiana man does not appear to have spread. “Genetic analysis of the virus in wild birds and poultry in Louisiana, including poultry on the patient’s property, and in other parts of the United States, did not detect similar viral changes,” the Post reported.
According to the Post, “Such changes would be more concerning … if they were also found in animals or within a few days of the start of symptoms, because that would suggest the virus was already acquiring these mutations.”
Nass said that the “longer a virus is able to reproduce inside a body, the more mutations you will find, and some are sure to improve its ability to infect human cells. The same thing occurred with COVID. It had no clinical significance then, either,” Nass added.
CNN reported that the Louisiana man was infected with the D1.1 clade of the bird flu virus — a strain that is currently circulating in wild birds and poultry, but not in dairy cattle that have been infected with bird flu. In November 2024, a teenager in the Canadian province of British Columbia was infected with this strain but recovered.
“Since we only have the Louisiana elder and the British Columbia teen who have come down with this particular strain of bird flu, it is not possible to say anything about the clinical illness, the propensity to infect others due to contact with wild birds, or even the risk of death,” Nass said.
Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer for Children’s Health Defense, told The Defender the mutation seen in the Louisiana man may be man-made.
“The type of mutation seen in the man’s H5N1 isolates is reminiscent of research that is being done by Yoshihiro Kawaoka, Ph.D. at the University of Wisconsin and Jessica Belser, Ph.D. at the CDC. Both researchers are attempting to humanize the virus so it can spread via respiratory droplets,” Hooker said.
Kawaoka and Belser are known for their involvement with gain-of-function research, where the transmissibility and virulence of pathogens are enhanced.
Dr. Richard Bartlett, an emergency room director and former Texas Department of Health and Human Services advisory council member, told The Defender that existing bird flu vaccines have not been designed for the D1.1 clade. He said:
“My understanding is that this is a different clade than bird flu vaccines that have already been purchased by governments around the world. In other words, they missed the mark. With vaccines it’s all or nothing. The winning treatment strategy will be early treatment.
“The question is, will the National Institutes of Health, CDC, World Health Organization [WHO] and government leaders — that are not doctors or scientists — repeat their mistakes? Will they push one option only? Vaccinate or bust? Are they slow learners? In 2009, we had the H1N1 pandemic with a highly contagious and very dangerous flu virus. Not one person was vaccinated, and the pandemic was over in nine months.”
According to the WHO, there have been nearly 900 human bird flu cases worldwide since 2003, and roughly half of those patients died. But according to CNN, “Because severe cases are more likely to be reported than mild ones, mild illnesses probably aren’t being factored into that figure.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Ohio Governor DeWine Vetoes “Medical Free Speech” Provision
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | January 7, 2025
Ohio Governor Mike DeWine has vetoed a provision in House Bill 315 that sought to shield medical professionals from state disciplinary actions over medical opinions conflicting with state-sanctioned guidance. The measure, described as a “medical free speech” safeguard, was removed through a late-night line-item veto on Thursday.
The provision aimed to bar regulatory entities, such as the Ohio Medical Board, from disciplining or threatening to discipline medical practitioners for expressing opinions—whether publicly or privately—that deviated from those of the board or other state agencies.
However, DeWine justified his veto by warning of potential harm to public health. In his message accompanying the veto, the governor stated, “it is not in the public interest and instead could lead to devastating and deadly consequences for patient health.”
DeWine also elaborated to reporters on how such a measure might undermine the state’s ability to hold doctors accountable for malpractice. He expressed concern that the provision could allow practitioners to avoid scrutiny simply by framing negligent actions as personal medical opinions. “All the doctor would have to say in defense is, ‘Well, it’s my opinion,’” DeWine remarked in late December, signaling his intent to veto the provision. “This would totally gut our ability to regulate health professionals.”
The proposal has faced resistance from DeWine’s administration since its initial introduction in an earlier bill, House Bill 73.
That legislation, spearheaded by Representative Jennifer Gross, R-West Chester, sought to expand patient access to off-label prescriptions and grant legal immunity to pharmacists filling such prescriptions. According to a nonpartisan analysis of H.B. 73, the bill aimed to protect both patients and medical providers engaging in treatments outside conventional practices.
Gross, a nurse practitioner, has consistently advocated for medical freedom, testifying before the Ohio House Health Provider Services committee in support of shielding health professionals from retaliation when utilizing what she described as “life-saving treatments.” Her stance reflects a broader push to ensure that neither patients nor medical practitioners face punitive consequences for pursuing unconventional or off-label medical options.
Facebook Dumps ‘Fact-checkers’ One Day After CHD Asks Supreme Court to Hear Censorship Case Against Meta
By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | January 7, 2025
Less than 24 hours after Children’s Health Defense (CHD) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its censorship case against Facebook’s parent company, Meta, Mark Zuckerberg announced the company is ending its third-party “fact-checking” program.
“It’s time to get back to our roots around free expression on Facebook and Instagram,” Zuckerberg told viewers in a press release video. Meta also owns Instagram.
CHD sued Meta in November 2020 over the social media giant’s censorship practices. The company de-platformed CHD from Facebook and Instagram in August 2022 and has not reinstated the accounts.
Commenting on today’s news, CHD CEO Mary Holland told The Defender, “It’s clear that Mark Zuckerberg is worried about new anti-censorship policies of the incoming administration — as he should be. The record in CHD v. Meta clearly shows Facebook’s close collaboration with the White House to censor vaccine-related speech, even pre-COVID.”
Holland added:
“CHD has taken its case to the Supreme Court, and Facebook doubtless realizes there are Justices there that are very dubious about Facebook’s role in censoring speech at the behest of the government in the new public square.
“Zuckerberg may imagine that by making this announcement he is mooting this case, or making it no longer significant. That’s not the situation — the country needs closure that this kind of fusion of state and industry to censor unwanted information will never happen again.”
CHD’s lawsuit against Facebook’s parent company, Meta, and its founder and CEO, Zuckerberg, alleges that government actors partnered with Facebook to censor the plaintiffs’ speech — particularly speech related to vaccines and COVID-19 — that should have been protected under the First Amendment.
The suit also named “fact-checking” firms Science Feedback, and the Poynter Institute and its PolitiFact website. On Aug. 9, 2024, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against CHD.
Lawyers with CHD urged the Supreme Court to reconsider the decision. They wrote in their petition, filed Monday:
“This case goes to the heart of our constitutional design, raising critical questions in the Internet Age about the availability of open debate free from government censorship-by-proxy.
“The practical consequences of leaving the decision below intact are enormous: the levers of censorship on the mega-platforms will always be sore temptation for executive office-holders — and not just about vaccines or Covid.”
National healthcare and constitutional practice attorney Rick Jaffe called Meta’s announcement a “very big deal for the country and for CHD.”
Jaffe represents CHD in some of its cases, including cases involving doctors’ right to speak freely about COVID-19. He told The Defender :
“For the last five-plus years, CHD — largely through Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Mary Holland, and the group’s supporters — have been at the forefront of defending free speech on social media … Meta’s action today shows the effect of the changing public’s view on censorship by social media companies which Meta could no longer ignore.
“So, congrats to CHD and its legal team who helped this happen. The work isn’t over yet, so onwards.”
Meta shifts to content moderation model used on X
Rather than turning to third parties to fact-check posts, Meta will use a “Community Notes model” in which social users themselves decide when posts are potentially misleading and need more context, said Meta’s Chief Global Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan in a statement. “We’ve seen this approach work on X,” Kaplan said.
The change will take a few weeks to implement, Kaplan said.
Meta also will lift restrictions on topics such as immigration and gender identity. “It’s not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress, but not on our platforms,” Kaplan said.
The Defender asked Meta if it will lift restrictions on discussions about vaccine safety and COVID-19 but did not receive a response by deadline.
Meta is also changing how it enforces its policies. “Up until now,” Kaplan said, “we have been using automated systems to scan for all policy violations, but this has resulted in too many mistakes and too much content being censored that should haven’t been.”
Zuckerberg said there’s “legitimately bad stuff out there — drugs, terrorism, child exploitation.” The company will continue to take those things “very seriously” by using automated systems to scan for them.
However, for less severe violations, Meta will rely on a person reporting an issue before taking action against an account user.
Zuckerberg said he always cared about freedom of expression but that in recent years, his company responded to pressure for stricter speech restrictions. “Governments and legacy media have pushed to censor more and more,” Zuckerberg said. “A lot of this is clearly political.”
He acknowledged that some of the “complex systems” Meta built to moderate content made mistakes. “We’ve reached a point where it’s just too many mistakes and too much censorship.”
Will Meta’s policy changes stick?
Zuckerberg said Meta’s policy changes were also prompted by the recent U.S. elections that were a “cultural tipping point toward once again prioritizing free speech.”
Jenin Younes, a civil rights attorney who represented some of the plaintiffs in the landmark censorship case Murthy v. Missouri, told The Defender she was “cautiously optimistic” about Meta’s announcement.
Meta appeared to be making the changes because of a new presidential administration, Younes said. “That means that Meta could change course in another four years under a different administration. We need major social media platforms — the modern public square — to adopt principled free speech positions that don’t change with the wind.”
If platforms don’t adopt strong free speech positions, public dialogue suffers, Younes said. “Censorship on Meta, especially during the COVID era, strangled public debate and even went so far as to prevent vaccine-injured individuals from corresponding with each other in private groups.”
Kim Mack Rosenberg, CHD general counsel, told The Defender Meta’s announcement does not undo the years of the damage done to CHD and many other individuals and groups.
“What is important is not only that Meta is making these changes but also that steps are taken to make sure this cannot be repeated, which makes our ongoing cases — including the recently filed petition to the U.S. Supreme Court — critically important.”
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Algeria Parliament accuses French President of ‘blatant interference’ in internal affairs
MEMO | January 7, 2025
The Algerian Parliament accused French President, Emmanuel Macron, on Tuesday of “blatant interference” in the North African country’s internal affairs, Anadolu Agency reports.
Macron, on Monday, criticised Algeria, calling the detention of Franco-Algerian writer, Boualem Sansal, at Algiers Airport in November a “disgraceful matter”.
In a statement, the People’s National Assembly, the first house of parliament, called Macron’s remarks “irresponsible” and represented an “affront to Algeria’s sovereignty and dignity” in a case currently under judicial review under Algerian law.
The statement termed Macron’s comments an “overt attempt to tarnish the image of Algeria and its sovereign institutions.”
The Assembly emphasized Algeria’s firm rejection of any foreign interference, particularly regarding issues related to human rights and freedoms.
“Algeria, which endured horrific violations during the French colonial era, will not accept external lessons on these matters,” the statement said.
Such actions are “unacceptable to the Algerian people and will not deter Algeria from its independent path. Instead, they strengthen its resolve to protect its sovereignty and dignity,” it added.
The Assembly called on French authorities to respect the principles of international relations, including mutual respect.
During his meeting with French ambassadors at the Élysée Palace on Monday, Macron claimed that Algeria “prevented a seriously ill man from receiving treatment” and called for Sansal’s release.
“We who love the people of Algeria and its history urge its government to release Boualem Sansal,” he said.
Two weeks earlier, Algerian President, Abdelmadjid Tebboune, accused France of “sending an illegitimate figure” – an apparent reference to Sansal – to claim that parts of Algeria’s territory once belonged to another country.
Sansal, a former industry ministry official dismissed in 2002, had previously asserted in French media that large parts of north-western Algeria historically belonged to Morocco.
The Algerian authorities arrested Sansal on 16 November at Algiers Airport upon his return from France.
Local media reported that he was charged under Article 87 of the Penal Code, facing accusations of undermining national unity and territorial integrity, according to his defence team.

