Great Barrington Declaration legend Professor Jay Bhattacharya has written a great piece in the Free Press about the recent federal court ruling that found the Biden administration violated free speech protections in the U.S. Constitution by making threatening demands of social media companies that they censor him and other dissenting scientists over pandemic policies. Here’s an excerpt.
My parents had taught me that people here could criticise the Government, even over matters of life and death, without worry that the Government would censor or suppress us. But over the past three years, I have been robbed of that conviction. American Government officials, working in concert with Big Tech companies, have attacked and suppressed my speech and that of my colleagues for criticising official pandemic policies — criticism that has been proven prescient.
On Friday, at long last, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled that we were not imagining it — that the Biden administration did indeed strong-arm social media companies into doing its bidding. The court found that the Biden White House, the CDC, the U.S. Surgeon General’s office and the FBI “engaged in a years-long pressure campaign [on social media outlets] designed to ensure that the censorship aligned with the Government’s preferred viewpoints”.
The judges described a pattern of Government officials making “threats of ‘fundamental reforms’ like regulatory changes and increased enforcement actions” if we did not comply. The implication was clear. To paraphrase Al Capone: Nice company you have there. It’d be a shame if something were to happen to it.
It worked. According to the judges, “the officials’ campaign succeeded. The platforms, in capitulation to state-sponsored pressure, changed their moderation policies.”
In exposing this behaviour — and in declaring it a likely violation of the First Amendment — the ruling is not just a victory for my fellow scientists and me, but for every single American.
The decision isn’t perfect, adds Dr. Bhattacharya.
Some entities at the heart of the Government’s censorship enterprise can still organise to suppress speech. For instance, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) within the Department of Homeland Security can still work with academics to develop a hit list for Government censorship. And the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Fauci’s old organisation, can still coordinate devastating takedowns of outside scientists critical of government policy.
But the headline is a good one: the federal Government can no longer threaten social media companies with destruction if they don’t censor on behalf of the Government.
The Biden administration, which has proven itself to be an enemy of free speech, will surely appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. But I am hopeful that we will win there, just as we have at every venue in this litigation. I am grateful for the resilience of the U.S. Constitution, which has withstood this challenge.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Since the EU can now censor, it’s a slightly hollow victory that would allow the US to plausibly deny. There’s no first amendment here, and I’d expect Ursula et al would be happy to act on a quick WhatsApp message
It is becoming increasingly clear that on this side of the pond we have no rights at all, only the one where, you have the right to stay silent, don’t criticise, don’t disagree, just do as your are told and be quiet.
In the UK I have some experience of dealing with situations in which public officials go to extraordinary lengths to block non-governmental inquiries into matters which have gone wrong, should there be any likelihood of those inquiries uncovering uncomfortable truths. This extends to coroners’ inquests and cases in the criminal and civil courts.
A typical case of interference shows up when an otherwise unremarkable case being argued before a judge suddenly takes an unexpected turn when the judge rules as inadmissible certain lines of questioning inadmissible or important evidence. Alternatively, the police may suddenly drop a clearly active and promising line of inquiry into malfeasance. This can baffle one of the parties and distort the rest of the proceedings. Only after the case has ended, perhaps by finding a scapegoat or an innocent victim, does a deeper truth eventually struggle to the surface: that somebody, or some organisation collectively, in the public sector made a mistake in the past, and that conceivably that mistake will be uncovered if questions are asked in the present case.
In more extreme cases an array of expert witnesses are dredged up (from a court-approved list) who then proceed to affect competence in the field and comprehension of the evidence. Again, this may adversely affect justice in the present case, in order to hide earlier blunders by professionals in other cases.
It’s almost as though there exists a hidden network between public sector employees (and professional institutions), especially at senior level, to “protect each others’ backsides”. The network then swings into action to block discussion in courts or disciplinary hearings if somebody or some organisation in the network might be exposed as grossly incompetent or corrupt.
Absolutely, Roy. Challenge any “authority” and all the other “authorities” will gang up against you. The only chance you have in the sorts of cases you describe is if you can somehow split the authorities to argue against each other. But it’s a long road and, as shown by the Gt Barrington scientists, not at all easy and “our authorities” become a target for ridiculed and can be side-lined when necessary.
Just as an interesting adjunct to this point. Have you notice how retaliation in sport after a player is fouled is always dealt with more harshly that the original foul? This is because the players who retaliate are effectively taking the law into their own hands or put another way, usurping the authority of the referee – and authorities really don’t like that!
As in the U.S.:
‘My parents had taught me that people here could criticise the Government, even over matters of life and death, without worry that the Government would censor or suppress us. But over the past three years, I have been robbed of that conviction.’
So in Britain:
‘An anonymous account of how Ofcom’s guidelines affected coverage was submitted to the APPG, prior to the meeting: “I have been told minutes before going on air with a national broadcaster not to discuss the Covid-19 vaccine because of concerns about compliance with Ofcom. I was not going to discuss the safety or efficacy of the vaccine, or subjects which you might think of as ‘controversial’, but other issues relating to mandates and passports.
“This was relayed to me by the production team as I was waiting to go on air, but came from the person responsible for compliance. This was definitely a last minute change because of fears about Ofcom and compliance. Even though I would not have said anything factually inaccurate, the conversation was inhibited to the point of being silenced.”
MPs examine whether Ofcom’s coronavirus guidance amounted to censorship
15 May 2023
Socialist fascism at work in both countries.
Only vote for independent candidates…..
The constitution is the highest order law of the land.
So some people have broken the law. What penalty will they face? None.
Given there are no repercussions for that kind of law breaking, what are the chances it will occur again?