Kennedy and CHD have been attempting to bring a lawsuit forward against the Biden administration since earlier this year. (Related: Joe Rogan warns Elon Musk and other tech leaders that ONLINE CENSORSHIP will intensify if Harris-Walz ticket wins.)
The Supreme Court initially refused to hear Kennedy's lawsuit, citing Murthy v. Missouri, a case that struck down a similar lawsuit against the Biden administration that argued the White House was censoring certain social media content. The court argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing due to insufficient evidence of direct injury linked to actions by the federal government.
But in Kennedy and CHD's case, known as Kennedy et al. v. Biden et al., the United States Chief Judge for the Western District Court of Louisiana ruled back in late August that Kennedy and CHD could pursue their case. The ruling noted that "Kennedy is likely to succeed on his claim that actions of Government Defendants caused suppression of content posted and there is a substantial risk that he will suffer similar injury in the near future."
The decision also indicated that Kennedy and CHD have sufficient evidence to argue that they were directly censored on social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram and YouTube due to alleged deliberate requests by government officials to suppress their content.
Doughty noted that this censorship could be traced back to direct communications and instructions from government officials to these platforms.
Kennedy, CHD targeted in "systematic, concerted" censorship campaign by Biden and social media
On Oct. 8, Kennedy and CHD presented their oral arguments before the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that they should be allowed to sue the Biden administration for censorship.
Kennedy and the CHD's case argues that President Joe Biden, former director of the National Institutes for Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci and other top Biden administration officials and federal agencies "waged a systematic, concerted campaign" to compel the nation's largest social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech.
Jed Rubenfeld, Yale Law School professor and attorney representing Kennedy and CHD, told the three-judge Appeals Court panel that lower courts have called the Biden administration's actions "the most massive attack on free speech in this nation's history, and it would be shocking if no plaintiff in the country had standing to challenge it."
Standing is the legal doctrine that requires plaintiffs to prove that defendants' actions caused direct and concrete injuries and that those injuries could be resolved in court. The plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri, for example, were unable to prove standing, and thus, the Supreme Court denied their case.
But Kim Mack Rosenberg, general counsel for CHD, argued that Kennedy and the organization are more likely to be able to prove standing with the Appeals Court. She noted that there is clear evidence that Kennedy and CHD were specific targets of censorship by tech companies and that they continue to be censored at the direction of the government.
"CHD, in particular, continues to be de-platformed from major social media sites with no end in sight," said Rosenberg.
Watch this episode of "Decentralize TV" as Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, speaks with Jason Fyk regarding how the federal government is colluding with Big Tech to unconstitutionally censor opposing views.
This video is from the Health Ranger Report channel on Brighteon.com.
More related stories:
Facebook built a VIP censorship pipeline for the White House and CDC, documents reveal.
NCLA sues federal government and social media giants for censoring vaccine injury testimonials.
Journalist Alex Berenson sues Biden regime for Twitter censorship.
Zuckerberg admits Biden admin pressured Meta to CENSOR content.
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.
