In his 155-page ruling, Judge Terry Doughty said there is “substantial evidence” the government violated the First Amendment by engaging in a large-scale censorship campaign targeting content that questioned or countered establishment narratives on COVID-19.
The lawsuit alleged the Biden administration and federal agencies collaborated with and “significantly encourage[d] Big Tech companies to suppress such speech” by pressuring them to engage in a “censorship-by-proxy scheme.”
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/orwellian-tactics-social-media-censorship-white-house/?utm_source=luminate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=20230705
It is about time.
Journalist John Stossel is the founder of Stossel TV. Here is an excerpt from the link below:
"In my video, I acknowledge, “Climate change has made things worse!” I just argued that government mismanagement was a bigger factor. Climate change hit lots of forests, but well-managed forests fared much better.
Then Facebook struck again.
They declared a video I did about the climate “crisis” partly false. This video, “Are We Doomed,” said that climate change is real but suggested that we can adapt to it, as Holland has. That video received 24 million views on Facebook. But after that second Facebook smear, viewership stopped.
Views for my other videos on Facebook dropped, too. I still get millions of views via YouTube, Rumble, etc., but I used to get most of my views from Facebook. No more.
see also
Facebook policy; Andrew Bosworth.
Facebook exec blames company’s users for spreading misinformation
I asked a Science Feedback reviewer what was wrong with my climate-crisis video, and he admitted that he and his other fact-checkers found no incorrect facts. Instead, they simply didn’t like my tone.
“The problem is the omission of contextual information rather than specific ‘facts’ being wrong,” he said.
What? It’s fine if people don’t like my tone. But Facebook declares my post “partly false,” a term it defines on its website as including “factual inaccuracies.”
My video does not contain factual inaccuracies. Again, I pointed this out to Facebook. But it changed nothing."
https://nypost.com/2021/12/13/facebook-bizarrely-claims-its-misquote-is-opinion/
The American leftists cheered on this censoring of facts. They called the facts lies, misinformation or disinformation. They were all wrong and continue to be wrong. Some people just hate facts and attack them at every turn with their despicable lies.
@metal-brain saidSo you want to restrict the free speech of Facebook, that halfwit gave his pro carbon industry opinion and Facebook gave some contextual counter opinion.
Journalist John Stossel is the founder of Stossel TV. Here is an excerpt from the link below:
"In my video, I acknowledge, “Climate change has made things worse!” I just argued that government mismanagement was a bigger factor. Climate change hit lots of forests, but well-managed forests fared much better.
Then Facebook struck again.
They declared a video I did a ...[text shortened]... e to be wrong. Some people just hate facts and attack them at every turn with their despicable lies.
Your fascist streak is a mile wide huh
You understand that everyone is allowed to contradict everyone else’s opinion, Facebook is allowed to have an opinion about things posted on its platform.
That corporate bitch’s video was not taken down, unless I’ve missed something.
@metal-brain saidIt's not unconstitutional for businesses to willingly partner with the government. It happens all the time. Drug companies like Pfizer did so during the pandemic.
@vivify
No. It is because it is unconstitutional dumb ass!
@vivify saidCorrect. It is not unconstitutional for businesses to willingly partner with the government.
It's not unconstitutional for businesses to willingly partner with the government. It happens all the time. Drug companies like Pfizer did so during the pandemic.
What is unconstitutional is for the government to censor protected speech. If the constitution prohibits the government from doing so, the government is prohibited from doing so by any means.
@sleepyguy saidIf a business willingly decides to censor content that is not the government's doing, no matter how much the government may have encouraged it.
Correct. It is not unconstitutional for businesses to willingly partner with the government.
What is unconstitutional is for the government to censor protected speech. If the constitution prohibits the government from doing so, it is prohibited from doing so by any means.
If the government forced Twitter to do so that would be a different matter. There's nothing wrong with the government encouraging the censoring of misinformation.
@vivify saidThe government cannot be allowed to be the arbiter of what is and is not true.
If a business willingly decides to censor content that is not the government's doing, no matter how much the government may have encouraged it.
If the government forced Twitter to do so that would be a different matter. There's nothing wrong with the government encouraging the censoring of misinformation.
@sleepyguy saidThey're not. The recommendations made by the Biden administration were in line with the world's most credible experts, like the WHO.
The government cannot be allowed to be the arbiter of what is and is not true.
@vivify saidSame problem. The experts were not credible, and people get to say so. What you want is indeed Orwellian, leading to that govt boot stamping on our faces forever. People who want that need to be kicked in the nuts forever.
They're not. The recommendations made by the Biden administration were in line with the world's most credible experts, like the WHO.
@sleepyguy saidIf experts are not credible, then who is? Non-experts?
The experts were not credible, and people get to say so.
Given the choice between listening to people who are formally educated and trained on a matter or laymen on Twitter, which is logically the better option?
@vivify saidSince the "experts" could be wrong, prejudiced, corrupt, dishonest etc., it's best to let everyone speak. That is the point.
If experts are not credible, then who is? Non-experts?
Given the choice between listening to people who are formally educated and trained on a matter or laymen on Twitter, which is logically the better option?
@sleepyguy saidAgreed. What I'm saying is the government didn't stop anyone from speaking; they merely encouraged businesses to willingly curb the spread of debunked falsehoods during a deadly pandemic that could lead to more death.
Since the "experts" could be wrong, prejudiced, corrupt, dishonest etc., it's best to let everyone speak. That is the point.
The Biden administration's recommendations didn't originate with them, it came from the vast majority of scientists educated on the matter.