Brownstone Institute
SCOTUS Versus Free Speech
From the Brownstone Institute
In a 6 to 3 ruling on the Murthy v. Missouri case, the Supreme Court ruled against me and my fellow co-plaintiffs, in effect rendering the US First Amendment a dead letter in the social media age. At stake in the case was the status of a preliminary injunction issued by lower federal courts ordering the Biden Administration to stop coercing social media companies to censor and shadowban people and ideas that the government does not like.
On July 4th of last year, federal Judge Terry Doughty issued the preliminary injunction under consideration in our case, ruling that – given the evidentiary record already considered – we are likely to win on the merits of the case we brought before the court. He described the Biden Administration’s censorship campaign as “Orwellian,” violating the First Amendment root and branch.
The facts of the case are simple to understand, voluminously documented, and shocking, and they explain why the lower courts – including a unanimous three-judge panel of the Federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals – issued the preliminary injunction to stop the Biden Administration from censoring in the first place. The injunction that reached the Supreme Court was narrowly constructed, specifically exempting national security-related communications between the government and social media companies, as well as communications regarding criminal activity on social media platforms such as child porn. The government was still permitted to tell social media companies about such speech.
The evidence revealed in the discovery of our case showed that employees of a dozen federal government agencies and the Biden White House directly pressured social media companies to censor viewpoints contrary to the official narratives they had pushed on the American people. Emails from the White House to Facebook show government officials threatening to use regulatory power to harm social media companies that did not comply with censorship demands.
Depositions of high–ranking career staff and political employees and unearthed emails between the government and social media companies like Facebook and Twitter/X revealed the government’s tactics to suppress speech. The Surgeon General’s office, the FBI, the CDC, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and the White House were all closely involved.
Government agencies funded universities and NGOs to support enterprises with Orwellian names like “Virality Project” and “Center for Countering Digital Hate” to create a target list for the Administration’s censorship efforts. With government backing, these entities – linked sometimes to prominent universities like Stanford and the University of Washington – work with corporate teams in social media companies’ “trust and safety” divisions to censor offending speech.
The problem is that the government and these entities are bad at identifying misinformation, and they have a predilection for censoring people and ideas that are critical of government policy, whether those criticisms are true or false.
For instance, according to court documents found during discovery, the Biden administration insisted on censoring and deboosting content that accurately pointed out the rapidly waning efficacy of the Covid vaccine against infections, which they used to justify executive orders imposing vaccine mandates.
The Biden White House pressured Facebook to censor vaccine discussions, such as groups of vaccine-injured patients, that did not violate Facebook’s community standards. In response to harsh communications from Biden Covid advisor Andy Slavitt in 2021, Facebook limited the reach of these groups and censored them.
Ironically, even the White House itself was caught by its censorship demands. At the Biden administration’s behest, Facebook implemented algorithms to suppress posts their computers deemed “anti-vax.” In April 2021, when the CDC issued a “pause” on the distribution of the Johnson & Johnson Covid vaccine because it had identified an elevated level of strokes in women, the Facebook algorithms tagged the White House account as an anti-vax account. The Administration angrily ordered Facebook to stop censoring its speech.
The censorship campaign harmed the health of Americans by preventing accurate speech by me and others from reaching the attention of the American people. Children were kept out of schools for years, churches, mosques, and synagogues were closed, businesses shuttered, and unvaccinated people lost their jobs and faced social discrimination because of misinformation put forward by the government. Had the government permitted a fair debate on the science of Covid, they would have lost on the merits. The continuing crisis of high excess mortality and many other harms caused by blinkered Covid policies might have been avoided.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning in denying the preliminary injunction against the Biden Administration is that the plaintiffs in the case, which included the states of Missouri and Louisiana, me, and several other targets of government censorship, have not established “standing” to sue the government on First Amendment grounds. The ruling, in effect, requires a chain of emails from a particular government bureaucrat to a social media company demanding that a social media company censor speech.
Since this censorship activity takes place in the dark recesses of government bureaucracies, outside of the capacity of regular citizens to observe, it sets a standard that is impossible to meet absent extraordinary circumstances. In my and my colleague Martin Kulldorff’s case, at least, the Supreme Court ignored evidence we uncovered of a high government official, Francis Collins (the former head of the National Institute on Health), directing Tony Fauci to conduct a “devastating takedown” of our ideas on how to better manage the pandemic (in brief, implementing focused protection of vulnerable elderly people and not closing schools or imposing harmful lockdowns).
The ruling also ignores the nature of the government censorship activities, which focuses more on censoring ideas and narrative themes than on censoring particular people. The government, directly and through its university and NGO proxies, coerces social media companies to implement automated algorithms to suppress and shadowban ideas that the government does not like, whether true or not. By requiring such a standard for “standing” in First Amendment cases, the Supreme Court has effectively greenlit sophisticated government censorship operations that moot the First Amendment.
The case now goes back down to the lower courts for more discovery and probing of the government censorship operation. While I anticipate we will win there, the case may come back up to the Supreme Court in due course. More importantly, though, our loss in the Supreme Court points to the need for Congress and voters to act to protect American free speech rights now that it is clear that the Supreme Court will not do so.
Congress should pass a law prohibiting the executive branch and associated federal bureaucracies from censoring Americans via direct and indirect pressure on social media, and it should cut funding to university and NGO operations that the government uses to launder its social censorship schemes. Voters should demand of every candidate for office, including the presidency, where they stand on the modern censorship operation and vote accordingly.
In a sense, by exposing and publicizing the government’s censorship operation, which cannot survive in the sunlight, we have already won despite the disappointing result in the Supreme Court.
Republished from the author’s Substack
Author
From the Brownstone Institute
The Australian Government is set to impose social media age limits, amid increasing concern over the effect of social media on youth mental health, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced today.
Legislation is to be introduced later this year, and is expected to gain bipartisan support after the leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, called to ban social media for under 16s earlier this year.
“We know social media is causing social harm, and it is taking kids away from real friends and real experiences,” said Albanese in a statement today, which also happens to be World Suicide Prevention Day.
“The safety and mental and physical health of our young people is paramount.”
“We’re supporting parents and keeping kids safe by taking this action, because enough is enough.”
The federal commitment to legislate social media age limits follows similar announcements from the Victorian and South Australian governments, both of which want to ban social media for kids under the age of 14.
The new legislation will build on a report by former High Court Chief Justice, Robert French, released on Sunday. The report, commissioned by the South Australian (SA) Government, includes draft legislation banning children under 14 from social media outright, and requiring companies to gain parental consent for 14 and 15-year-olds to use their platforms.
Recent polling shows strong public support for an age-based social media ban, with 61% of respondents agreeing that the government should restrict the use of social media platforms for Australians younger than 17. Unsurprisingly, support was lower among younger Australians. Only 54% of respondents aged 18 to 24 agreed with the ban.
The potential harms of social media for kids have come to prominence in the past decade, particularly with the ubiquity of the smartphone.
Author and psychologist Jonathan Haidt has said social media is “more addictive than heroin,” causing the “great rewiring” of childhood. He is one of many researchers who suggest that the increased uptake of social media and smartphones has created an “international epidemic” of depression, anxiety, and suicide among young people.
Research by Australia’s online safety regulator, eSafety, found that 75% of 16 to 18-year-olds had seen online pornography – of those, nearly one-third saw it before the age of 13, and nearly half saw it between the ages of 13 and 15.
In other research, eSafety found that almost two-thirds of 14-17-year-olds have viewed potentially harmful content in the past year, such as content relating to drug taking, suicide, or self-harm, or gory or violent material.
There are also concerns about children being preyed upon online. Sonya Ryan OAM, the founder and chief executive of the Carly Ryan Foundation, has experienced this personally. Her daughter Carly, was killed in 2007 at the age of 15 by a predator she met online.
Ryan has voiced her support for new laws to protect kids, stating, “In my opinion the only way forward is to create appropriate legislation to protect our children from these harms and regulate big tech companies to include mandatory age verification across all platforms.”
Others are worried that banning children’s access to social media will cause unintended harms.
“Social media is one of the only public spaces where children can communicate directly with their friends – often maintaining connections with distant friends and loved ones that would otherwise be impossible,” said information and technology expert Dr Dana McKay of RMIT University.
Instead of banning kids from social media, the focus should be on making social media safer, said Dr McKay.
“Many of the problems can already be addressed by minimising advertising and detecting and addressing harmful interactions through behavioural analytics, for example,” she said.
Details on how the new age assurance laws and technology will work are hazy until legislation is tabled later this year, but the concept has already been in development for some time.
The Federal Government has invested $6.5 million in a trial of age assurance technology which will be used to enforce the social media age limit, with the technology aspect of the trial currently out to tender.
At the same time, Australia’s online safety regulator, eSafety has given digital industry associations until the end of this year to propose improved industry codes that will be enforceable by eSafety to limit children’s access to inappropriate content online, including pornography and self-harm content.
Both of these initiatives are tied in with Age Verification Roadmap, which in turn is tied in with Australia’s recently legislated Digital ID framework, to which the government has allotted $288.1 million over the next four years.
Republished from the author’s Substack
Author
From the Brownstone Institute
It was one of those conversations you never forget. We were discussing – of all things – the Covid injections, and I was questioning the early ‘safe and effective’ claims put forward by the pharmaceutical industry. I felt suspicious of how quickly we had arrived at that point of seeming consensus despite a lack of long-term safety data. I do not trust the pharmaceutical industry. My colleague did not agree, and I felt my eyes widen as he said, “I don’t think they would do anything dodgy.” Clearly, my colleague had not read the medical history books. This conversation slapped me out of my own ignorance that Big Pharma’s rap sheet was well-known in the profession. It isn’t.
With this in mind, let’s take a look at the history of illegal and fraudulent dealings by players in the pharmaceutical industry; an industry that has way more power and influence than we give them credit for.
Before I continue, a word (not from our sponsor). There are many people working in this industry who have good intentions towards improving healthcare for patients, dedicating their lives to finding a cure or treatment for disease. Some therapeutic pharmaceuticals are truly life-saving. I probably wouldn’t be here today were it not for a couple of life-saving drugs (that’s a story for another time). But we must be very clear in our understanding. The pharmaceutical industry, as a whole and by its nature, is conflicted and significantly driven by the mighty dollar, rather than altruism.
There are many players and different games being played by the industry. We ignore these at our peril. The rap sheet of illegal activities is alarming. It seems that barely a month goes by without some pharmaceutical company in court, somewhere. Criminal convictions are common and fines tally into the billions. Civil cases, with their million-dollar settlements, are abundant too.
A 2020 peer-reviewed article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association outlines the extent of the problem. The group studied both the type of illegal activity and financial penalties imposed on pharma companies between the years 2003 and 2016. Of the companies studied, 85 percent (22 of 26) had received financial penalties for illegal activities with a total combined dollar value of $33 billion. The illegal activities included manufacturing and distributing adulterated drugs, misleading marketing, failure to disclose negative information about a product (i.e. significant side effects including death), bribery to foreign officials, fraudulently delaying market entry of competitors, pricing and financial violations, and kickbacks.
When expressed as a percentage of revenue, the highest penalties were awarded to Schering-Plough, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Allergan, and Wyeth. The biggest overall fines have been paid by GSK (almost $10 billion), Pfizer ($2.9 billion), Johnson & Johnson ($2.6 billion), and other familiar names including AstraZeneca, Novartis, Merck, Eli Lilly, Schering-Plough, Sanofi Aventis, and Wyeth. It’s quite a list, and many of the Big Pharma players are repeat offenders.
Prosecuting these companies is no mean feat. Cases often drag for years, making the avenue of justice and resolution inaccessible to all but the well-funded, persistent, and steadfast. If a case is won, pharma’s usual response is to appeal to a higher court and start the process again. One thing is clear; taking these giants to court requires nerves of steel, a willingness to surrender years of life to the task, and very deep pockets.
For every conviction, there are countless settlements, the company agreeing to pay out, but making no admission of guilt. A notable example is the S35 million settlement made, after 15 years of legal maneuvering, by Pfizer in a Nigerian case that alleged the company had experimented on 200 children without their parent’s knowledge or consent.
Reading through the case reports, the pattern of behavior is reminiscent of the movie Groundhog Day with the same games being played by different companies as if they are following some kind of unwritten playbook.
Occasionally there is a case that lifts the lid on these playbook strategies, revealing the influence of the pharma industry and the lengths they are willing to go to, to turn a profit. The Australian Federal Court case Peterson v Merck Sharpe and Dohme, involving the manufacturer of the drug Vioxx, is a perfect example.
By way of background, Vioxx (the anti-arthritis drug Rofecoxib) was alleged to have caused an increased risk of cardiovascular conditions including heart attack and stroke. It was launched in 1999 and, at peak popularity, was used by up to 80 million people worldwide, marketed as a safer alternative to traditional anti-inflammatory drugs with their troublesome gastrointestinal side effects.
In Peterson v Merck Sharpe and Dohme, the applicant – Graeme Robert Peterson – alleged the drug had caused the heart attack he suffered in 2003, leaving him significantly incapacitated. Peterson argued that the Merck companies were negligent in not having withdrawn the drug from the market earlier than they did in 2004 and, by not warning of the risks and making promotional representations to doctors, were guilty of misleading and deceptive conduct under the Commonwealth Trade Practices Act 1974.
In November 2004 Dr David Graham, then Associate Director for Science and Medicine in FDA’s Office of Drug Safety provided powerful testimony to the US Senate regarding Vioxx. According to Graham, prior to the approval of the drug, a Merck-funded study showed a seven-fold increase in heart attacks. Despite this, the drug was approved by regulatory agencies, including the FDA and the TGA.
This finding was later supported by another Merck-funded study, VIGOR – which showed a five-fold increase, the results of which were published in the high-impact New England Journal of Medicine. It was later revealed by subpoena during litigation that three heart attacks were not included in the original data submitted to the journal, a fact that at least two of the authors knew at the time. This resulted in a ‘misleading conclusion’ regarding the risk of heart attack associated with the drug.
By the time Peterson v Merck Sharpe and Dohme, an associated class action involving 1,660 people, was heard in Australia in 2009, the international parent of MSD, Merck, had already paid $4.83 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits in the US over adverse effects of Vioxx. Predictably, Merck made no admission of guilt. The Australian legal battle was a long, drawn-out affair, taking several years with more twists and turns than a cheap garden hose (you can read more about it here and here).
Long story short, a March 2010 Federal Court finding in favor of Peterson was later overturned by a full bench of the Federal Court in Oct 2011. In 2013, a settlement was reached with class action participants which resulted in a mere maximum payment of $4,629.36 per claimant. MSD generously waived their claim for legal costs against Peterson.
What’s notable in this battle was the headline-grabbing courtroom evidence detailing the extent of alleged pharmaceutical misdeeds in marketing the drug. The pharma giant went to the lengths of producing sponsored journals with renowned scientific publisher Elsevier, including a publication called The Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine. These fake ‘journals’ were made to look like independent scientific journals, but contained articles attributed to doctors that were ghostwritten by Merck employees. Some doctors listed as honorary Journal board members said they had no idea they were listed in the journal and had never been given any articles to review.
But wait, there’s more.
The trove of internal emails presented in evidence revealed a more sinister level of operation. One of the emails circulated at the pharma giant’s US headquarters contained a list of ‘problem physicians’ that the company sought to ‘neutralize’ or ‘discredit.’ The recommendations to achieve these ends included payment for presentations, research and education, financial support of private practice, and ‘strong recommendation(s) to discredit.’ Such was the extent of intimidation, that one professor wrote to the head of Merck to complain about the treatment of some of his researchers critical of the drug. The court heard how Merck had been ‘systematically playing down the side effects of Vioxx’ and their behavior ‘seriously impinge(d) on academic freedom.’
This alleged systematic intimidation was as extensive as it was effective. Result? Merck made over $2 billion per year in sales before Vioxx was finally pulled from pharmacy shelves in 2004. In his testimony, Dr Graham estimated that between 88,000 and 139,000 excess cases of heart attack or sudden cardiac death were caused by Vioxx in the US alone before it was withdrawn.
These systems of influence, manipulation, and tactics were largely operative when Covid arrived. Add to that the ‘warp speed’ development of novel ‘vaccines,’ government green lights, pharmaceutical indemnity, and confidential contracts. Now you have the makings of a pharmaceutical payday the likes of which we have never seen before.
It should come as no surprise then, the recent announcement that five US states – Texas, Kansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Utah – are taking Pfizer to court for withholding information, and misleading and deceiving the public through statements made in marketing its Covid-19 injection. That these cases are filed as civil suits under consumer protection laws is likely just the tip of the pharmaceutical playbook iceberg. No doubt the discovery process will hold further lessons for us all.
Author
Alberta bill in the works protects healthcare workers, hospices from having to offer euthanasia
Harm reduction projects in Nelson are fraying the city’s social fabric, residents say
US lawmakers accuse Pfizer, Eli Lilly of testing new drugs on prisoners in Communist China
Ottawa’s tariffs undercut Ottawa’s EV mandate
-
Daily Caller2 days ago9/11 Widow Slams Biden Admin’s ‘Outrageous’ Attempted Plea Deals For Gitmo Terrorists
-
Alberta23 hours agoPremier: Stop sending asylum claimants to Alberta!
-
Business2 days ago‘No One Is Paying Attention!’: Google Whistleblower Tells Rogan ‘Free And Fair Election’ Is An ‘Illusion’
-
National22 hours agoBloc Québécois leader announces he will not work to keep Trudeau Liberals in power
-
National2 days agoAlexandra Mendès becomes first Liberal MP to publicly call on Trudeau to resign
-
COVID-1914 hours agoCanadian who protested COVID measures at bridge blockade wins appeal
-
MAiD2 days agoQuebec to allow ‘advance’ requests for euthanasia in apparent violation of federal law
-
Alberta1 day agoPolice seize more than 66 kg of illicit drugs in interprovincial trafficking investigation