COVID-19 vaccine touted as “safe and effective” Many of Americans have been injured or worse during the pandemic. Some who were still physically healthy went online to voice their concerns, share their life-changing experiences, and engage with others who were medically disadvantaged by government mandates or experimental science. But in many cases, they were unable to do so.
Their posts were suppressed, their accounts were deleted or quarantined, and their speech was completely suppressed.
Many Americans harmed by the vaccine are seeking to hold the Biden-Harris administration and its co-conspirators accountable for this affront.
The New Civil Liberties Union Amended Complaint Friday Dressen et al. v. Flaherty et al. On behalf of five individuals who suffered vaccine-related injuries and a sixth plaintiff who lost his son to a vaccine-related injury.
The suit names as defendants various figures in the Democratic administration, including President Joe Biden, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, Health Secretary Xavier Becerra and alumni of the now-defunct Stanford Internet Observatory's Virality Project.
According to NCLA, the Biden administration, the Department of Public Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other parts of the Biden-Harris administration “coerced, induced, or conspired with social media platforms to censor, suppress, and label as 'misinformation' the speech of people who have suffered vaccine-related injuries.”
The amended complaint further details how this apparent censorship scheme has continued since the lawsuit was first filed last May.
“The federal government has launched a war against alleged misinformation, disinformation and fraud, despite the First Amendment.”
“It is not the government's role to screen, filter, or suppress objectionable speech before it reaches the eyes and ears of the American people, yet that is exactly what is happening here,” the lawsuit reads. “This lawsuit challenges the government's program of mass censorship and the shocking role it has played (and continues to play) in suppressing objectionable views that it deems a threat to government policy.”
On the surface, this case appears to have many similarities to that of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Kennedy vs BidenThat case and related lawsuits were given the go-ahead last month by U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty of the Western District of Louisiana. Mursi vs Biden.
Like the other two, the lawsuit points out that the Biden-Harris administration has pressured social media companies like Facebook and Twitter to censor speech that doesn't violate the platforms' existing policies. KennedyIn addition, in this paper, Murthy.
In a June ruling, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the plaintiffs.
Murthy There was no standing to sue. Kennedy and the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are likely to prevail.
Among the many instances of censorship highlighted in the lawsuit was the removal of a private Facebook support group called “A Wee Sprinkle of Hope,” which had thousands of members harmed by vaccines.
In that lawsuit, plaintiff Brianne Dressen (who is also suing AstraZeneca for inflicting debilitating injuries) posted an infographic listing the various now-well-known side effects following the COVID vaccine. She also linked to a press conference where she explained the extent and nature of her injuries.
Dressen soon learned that her support page had been disabled for violating the platform's “community standards regarding misinformation potentially harmful to physical harm,” according to the lawsuit.
When she and other former members of A Wee Sprinkle of Hope started a new support group on Facebook, the platform again began monitoring, flagging and “fact-checking” their posts, even though they used codes and keyword substitutions.
Another defendant, Ernesto Ramirez, apparently set up a GoFundMe page to raise money for a trip to Washington, D.C., where he planned to discuss his son's vaccine-related death. Ramirez's account was suspended after he allegedly violated the “prohibited conduct” terms of service, according to the lawsuit.
Denying a grieving father the means to give further meaning to his son's death is egregious enough, but perhaps even more disturbing was what Facebook allegedly did on Ramirez's son's birthday.
Ramirez posted a photo of herself standing next to her son's casket with the caption, “Saying goodbye to my son.” According to the lawsuit, Facebook labeled the post as “partially false,” while Twitter reportedly removed the photo and told Ramirez to “share reliable information.”
The indictment is similarly packed with stories denouncing censorship and illustrating exactly how powerful the federal government was.
Perhaps the most provocative allegation in the amended complaint is:
The federal government has launched a war on alleged misinformation, disinformation, and misinformation to protect the American people from harmful or dangerous ideas, regardless of the First Amendment. Indeed, the defendants admit to suppressing true speech that they clearly acknowledge is true, such as stories about vaccine side effects, but the government still targets such speech for censorship because it “may incite vaccine hesitancy.”
The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction against further state-sponsored censorship, arguing that their First Amendment rights have been violated and that the government defendants, excluding Biden, have exceeded the powers delegated to them by Congress.
“If ever there was a case that illustrates why the First Amendment exists and the abhorrent, Orwellian consequences that result when the government circumvents its limitations, it's this one,” said Casey Norman, NCLA's litigation counsel.
“The plaintiffs in this lawsuit posed a threat to the Biden administration because their personal experiences contradicted the government's aggressive approach to COVID-19 vaccinations, which is based on the false assertion that vaccine harm is virtually non-existent,” said Jeanine Younes, NCLA's litigation counsel.
This appears to be one of several signals that reckoning is imminent when it comes to COVID authoritarians and reckless pharmaceutical companies.
In June, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach (Republican) announced that the state would sue Pfizer for making “misleading claims about its COVID vaccine.”
British-Swedish pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca, which developed a joint COVID-19 viral vector vaccine with the University of Oxford, is currently fighting a class-action lawsuit brought by alleged victims and the families of those who died.
AstraZeneca had denied for years that its vaccine could cause blood clots, but acknowledged in court documents in February that “it is accepted that the AZ vaccine may, in very rare cases, cause blood clots.” [thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome]The causative mechanism is unknown.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censorship and sign up for our newsletter to receive stories like this directly to your inbox. Register here!
