RFK Jr. Wins Deferred Injunction In Vax Social Media Suit (bloomberglaw.com) 323
schwit1 writes: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. won a preliminary injunction against the White House and other federal defendants in his suit alleging government censorship of his statements against vaccines on social media. The injunction, however, will be stayed until the US Supreme Court rules in a related case brought by Missouri and Louisiana. An injunction is warranted because Kennedy showed he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claims, Judge Terry A. Doughty of the US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana said Wednesday.
The White House defendants, the Surgeon General defendants, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defendants, the Federal Bureau of Investigation defendants, and the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency defendants likely violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, Doughty said. Kennedy's class action complaint, brought with health care professional Connie Sampognaro and Kennedy's nonprofit, Children's Health Defense, alleges that the federal government, beginning in early 2020, began a campaign to induce Facebook, Google (YouTube), and X, formerly known as Twitter, to censor constitutionally protected speech.
Specifically, Kennedy said, the government suppressed "facts and opinions about the COVID vaccines that might lead people to become 'hesitant' about COVID vaccine mandates." Kennedy has sufficiently shown that these defendants "jointly participated in the actions of the social media" platforms by '"insinuating' themselves into the social-media companies' private affairs and blurring the line between public and private action," Doughty said.
The White House defendants, the Surgeon General defendants, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defendants, the Federal Bureau of Investigation defendants, and the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency defendants likely violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, Doughty said. Kennedy's class action complaint, brought with health care professional Connie Sampognaro and Kennedy's nonprofit, Children's Health Defense, alleges that the federal government, beginning in early 2020, began a campaign to induce Facebook, Google (YouTube), and X, formerly known as Twitter, to censor constitutionally protected speech.
Specifically, Kennedy said, the government suppressed "facts and opinions about the COVID vaccines that might lead people to become 'hesitant' about COVID vaccine mandates." Kennedy has sufficiently shown that these defendants "jointly participated in the actions of the social media" platforms by '"insinuating' themselves into the social-media companies' private affairs and blurring the line between public and private action," Doughty said.
Ok serious question (albeit unkind) (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Ok serious question (albeit unkind) (Score:5, Funny)
Who benefits if more people get sick and/or die?
Funeral home directors? HOLY SHIT! VAST CONSPIRACY CONFIRMED!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately they also put the immunocompromised at risk along the way. I have absolutely no issue with people flinging themselves off cliffs. When they tie a rope to an innocent bystander and pull them down as well, then I have an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just have the small number of immunocompromised just take extra measures, sequester themselves, etc....and let the rest of the world go on about its business and enjoy its freedoms?
Were you living under a rock the past 4 years? Did you miss where even under quarantine orders covid19 was still spreading among retirement communities filling up ERs?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do lock downs if even people in well controlled environments are getting sick?
To prove to Government that lock downs can be executed with little resistance.
Now stop asking fucking stupid questions.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
now has many health issues that are only attributable to the vax, so much so that he receives partial medical disability. I also have other friends that now have permanent life long medical issues due to the results of the vax
I am sorry that your son and friends have health issues. However there is no significant scientific evidence that the US COVID-19 vaccines produced health problems that were any more severe or different than any other vaccine used in the last 50 years. There is strong scientific evidence that getting vaccinated significantly decreased the chance of death from COVID, and therefore were a net benefit for the population. Just like with childhood vaccines, there is a tendency to blame vaccines for the onset of
Re: Ok serious question (albeit unkind) (Score:3, Insightful)
When your son enlisted he gave up the right to even know what he is injected with. He doesn't in fact know whether he was given anything else but the vaccine, so he can't tell you either.
Re: Ok serious question (albeit unkind) (Score:4, Insightful)
speaking as someone who got vaxxed as soon as possible, i have to call you out on misinformation. A lot goes into vacccines beyond the single protein from the virus or the inactivated cells. Those other things cause allergic reactions often enough to be well-documented and there a host of other side-effects and drug-interactions documented for vaccines that you really should have known better.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
that was rushed through by Operation: Warp Speed, thanks in no small part to Trump, controlled long term studies and tests be damned.
The bureaucracy was accelerated but the testing was all still done and now years after it was released we can see that it's safe over the long term.
I always find it a bit funny when conservatives try to credit Trump with Operation: Warp Speed as if any president would have done less in the situation. He may have botched most of the response, but at least he approved this one program!
Re: (Score:2)
Hypothetical: you are president of the United States. It is a few months before Covid has become a well known thing but you're hearing some noise about it in your morning intelligence briefings.
What would you do?
Re:Ok serious question (albeit unkind) (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, first of all pretty much anyone who hates the US. They actually get a lot of other benefits out of it, too. A nation divided, busy with keeping itself in existence, an economy that suffers because of it, a lower workforce... pretty much anything that comes out of the whole deal benefits anyone who wants a weaker US. China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, pick and choose, multiple answers possible.
Re:Ok serious question (albeit unkind) (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, first of all pretty much anyone who hates the US.
Right-wing kookery is a worldwide phenomenon.
It is in the ascendency almost everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
With our country being so much more conservative than the rest of the first world it does seem that we're a bit more so in terms of extremes on the right than other countries though. I think this is illustrated pretty well by 2/3rds of our conservative party (which makes up about 1/3 of the population) believing in unfounded election conspiracy and us actually having a recent president who feeds into a lot of this. In most other first world countries these types seem to be more on the fringes still.
I could
Re: (Score:2)
... pretty much anything that comes out of the whole deal benefits anyone who wants a weaker US. China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, pick and choose, multiple answers possible.
Sadly, we Americans are far more worried about the obvious insider threat leading this country into its own demise.
The rest of the planet has already realized they don't actually need to do much more than grab the fucking popcorn and watch.
Re: (Score:2)
Well....
It was (and is) a LOT of Americans being worried about a federal govt. that was acting WAY beyond it's constitutional powers, silencing/censoring American citizens, influencing social media to ban/suppress legal speech and encroaching on US citizens' rights.
Until the Silent Majority fails to live up to their name your comments are proven to be worthless, because apathy.
We would have leaders hanging from nooses in the actual times square if your statement was even half true. Instead, we have "citizens" arguing about the benefits of a digital times square, hobbled by a 280-character limit of attention span.
Re:Ok serious question (albeit unkind) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ok serious question (albeit unkind) (Score:4, Interesting)
No one has been prevented from questioning facts. You are free to raise any question you like. However, once your questions have been answered, you can't go back another time and ask the same questions, then complain no one will answer you. You were given your answer, now move on.
What Kennedy, and others, keep doing is repeating same lies and debunked crap over and over and over, then whine when people have had enough and don't give them a forum to keep repeating their lies because they've told time and again what they're saying is a lie or has been debunked.
I'm pretty sure I could pick a random family doctor from my area and they would flatten Kennedy's lies about vaccines in an open forum. No need for the CDC or any government agency to get involved.
Re: Ok serious question (albeit unkind) (Score:2)
Amen
Re:Ok serious question (albeit unkind) (Score:5, Informative)
but it is notable how many otherwise young healthy males got very sick or flat out died shortly after getting Pfizer.
So, how many are there? Since this is a rather extraordinary claim, you should show us some rather extraordinary data. We can then sue Pfizer collectively.
Let's do it, where's the evidence?
Re:Ok serious question (albeit unkind) (Score:4, Insightful)
Who benefits if more people get sick and/or die?
You assume that censoring conspiracy theory X makes people stop believing in X.
It doesn't. It makes people more likely to believe in X.
Censorship validates what the kooks are claiming.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Censorship validates what the kooks are claiming.
I agree. I think one of the big issues here is that folks who support civil rights suppression (restrictions on speech, movement, etc..) are chicken shit pussy assholes who know damn well they'd be shredded on the merits of any attempted argument for the repressive policies. Instead, they endlessly attempt to straw-man the vaccine skeptics and assert over and over that they are the side of The Science and The Truth. Somehow this is supposed to justify censorship? This is enough to justify throwing people o
Re: (Score:2)
For some maybe but for others repeating misinformation over and over again gives it an air of legitimacy as it becomes "normal" and "part of the debate".
Re: (Score:2)
And that's why all the dictatorships censor like crazy?
Re: (Score:2)
Who benefits if more people get sick and/or die?
It's a serious question, and a legitimate one. But one that has been answered already.
You have a brand new product to bring to the American market. If it is A) highly addictive, B) highly profitable (and therefore taxable), and C) creates harm that drives even more profit for you or others (such as physical/mental/psychological harm that feeds the Medical Industrial Complex), then you can be guaranteed your product will receive approval from the Government.
If your product does not deliver on those requirem
Re: (Score:2)
The best tinfoil hat theory for that would be the government, as people that are more willing to trust the only option from given "for free" were the ones that took the vaccines.
There were a bunch of just as effective non-mrna vaccines available, and with a simple marketing of "you can buy a traditional made one", many more lives would probably be saved.
But that's just a tinfoil hat theory.
Re: Ok serious question (albeit unkind) (Score:5, Insightful)
Age-old tradeoff: freedom or security.
Whereever a society chooses to draw the line, there will be marginal cases that could go either way. And the answer to who benefits one way or the other is always the same: more security benefits the immediate physical safety of (ideally) the many; more freedom benefits the downstream political, intellectual, and economic wellbeing of (ideally) the many.
Where we have historically drawn the line, we assert that empowering the government to suppress ideas it doesn't like is intolerable; men have given their lives for the right to express opinions deemed unfavorable by the government and we generally call them heroes. Not because we agree with them necessarily, but because freedom is more beneficial for all, despite the very human instinct to crowd around the strongman for protection.
Re: (Score:2)
Bill Gates.
I think. It was Bill Gates, right? Or some people in the basement of a pizza joint? Was Bill Gates in the basement of a pizza joint? With a Jewish space laser?
Yes. It was Bill Gates, in the basement of a pizza joint, with a Jewish space laser.
Republicans who need an issue (Score:2)
Same thing with the Border Bill they demanded. The got the bill they wanted and then killed it themselves so they'd have something to campaign on besides tax cuts for the rich, which doesn't work when you're treating people so badly you're bringing back child labor
Re: (Score:2)
Work it, baby, work it! Get that 1% and the Republicans in the same sentence! You go, girl! Woot!
Child labor was a nice touch at the end.
Re: (Score:2)
Who benefits if more people get sick and/or die?
Depends on the people.
From 2021... For COVID-19 vaccinations, party affiliation matters more than race and ethnicity [brookings.edu]
According to Gallup, 40% of Republicans “don’t plan” to get vaccinated, versus 26% of Independents and just 3% of Democrats. In response to a more sharply worded KFF question, 23% of Republicans report that they will “definitely not” get vaccinated, compared to 11% of Independents and just 4% of Democrats.
And others ...
- How Many Republicans Died Because the GOP Turned Against Vaccines? [theatlantic.com]
- The Right’s Anti-Vaxxers Are Killing Republicans [theintercept.com]
- Google: unvaccinated by political party [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Free Speech vs. Survival (Score:2, Insightful)
Your right to free speech ends at the exact point where it starts endangering other people; be that encouraging others to start shooting all the jews, encouraging bungee jumping with hemp rope instead of elastic, or getting people to not protect themselves from a deadly worldwide disease.
Or in more colloquial terms; your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Brandenburg v. Ohio is the current standard that defines where the 1st amendment ends, and guess what, you got it wrong.
You are in fact allowed to yell "Fire!" in a theater.
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to re-read the Brandenburg v. Ohio concurrencies. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is given as an example of a rare case where such speech *can* be prosecuted, because it is "a classic case where speech is brigaded with action."
Re: (Score:2)
It was Schenck v United States that made the fire in a theater ruling, Brandenberg overturned it.
Re: (Score:2)
> You might want to re-read the Brandenburg v. Ohio concurrencies. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is given as an example of a rare case where such speech *can* be prosecuted
You might want to re-read it yourself, because it overturns Schenck v. United States which is the "Fire in a crowded theater" ruling that is such a popular amongst Free speech haters. Brandenburg v. Ohio affirms the actual right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and narrows a whole lot what would be unprotected incitement.
D
Re: (Score:2)
Read what I *wrote*, about the concurrencies.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a American, nice assumption.
But I wouldn't want to live under a Tyranny where Government gets to dictate truth, because let's face it, politicians are more often wrong than right, on all sides.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They know perfectly well. They just don't care. Only the end result matters. Fully justifying the means.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be true in a sane county. When it comes to freedom of speech, guns, or healthcare... The US is not sane and rational.
Discussion with the people whose minds you need to change is impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
> Discussion with the people whose minds you need to change is impossible.
"Send dissidents to the Gulag" is a very Soviet position, even for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Fascinating accusation from someone with 'Red' in his name, comrade.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, that's quite a stretch there. I guess Red Forman was a secret commie to by your logic, Or Redd Fox maybe, How about Red Skelton?
Re: (Score:2)
Who gets to decide what acceptable speech is?
Re: Free Speech vs. Survival (Score:2)
Me! I'm smart and credentialed and photogenic! And I'll beat your face in if you don't like it /s
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, I'm an American, why you bringing fists to a gun fight?
Re: Free Speech vs. Survival (Score:2)
Kind of a problem when one attempts to graft old-world solutions onto the new world. Good feature of the new world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are then free to not live here then.
I, personally, feel blessed to be in such a country....many of us have fought and died to keep our freedoms.
Here, we value the individual. It's tough some times, but it is what being free is all about....and it has allowed us to date to succeed far beyond any other country on the planet.
Sadly, tho...we are losing our way....and losing sight on what is right, and what is to b
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So by this measure Catholic priests suggesting people don't wear condoms, which could lead to STD's and death have no right to 'free speech' because it is promoting deadly and dangerous activites? Nobody makes you listen or agree with these people.
Re: (Score:2)
That could be a great victory (Score:5, Insightful)
More dimwits will die, I hope.
Ok, some normal people will also fall as collateral damage, but that's a price we have to pay to get rid of the lower end of the IQ spectrum. Funny, we just recently had a discussion about how people would react to something that eliminates the lower echelons of the IQ scale. It seems it will be celebrated by the very people who get to be killed.
Re: (Score:2)
More dimwits will die, I hope.
Ok, some normal people will also fall as collateral damage, but that's a price we have to pay to get rid of the lower end of the IQ spectrum.
Funny how people don't realize "normal" people turn out to be loved ones, until they're dead.
There's a reason we still add the word damage to collateral. Your ignorance on the matter makes it clear you've been lucky enough to afford your ignorance. Best not to assume so hard. Shit Happens. So does Life.
Re: (Score:2)
Well as much as i think progressives are naive children with a compliance fetish, i don't wish them death.
That is quite grim.
Re:That could be a great victory (Score:4, Insightful)
You're arguing with someone who sees fear as a virtue, believes (wholeheartedly) that mommy would never lie to them, and that if the media says it, it must be true. It's pointless. But the logic apparently goes something like this:
>You can't spread covid if you get your jab (you can.)
>You won't catch covid if you get your jab (you can.)
>well, you just won't get sick if you got your jab (CITATION NEEDED)
>you're literally killing grandma if you don't do what you're told!
Further, covid is very much still around, despite a very high rate of vaccination uptake. Do these horrible people wish death upon the majority of people who just realized how silly it is to still get boosters, and opted out ? And anyways what is the uptake rate on boosters, right now? Fun aside, why does all cause mortality track so nicely with vaccine/booster uptake? Could it be, could it possibly be there is a correlation there? (Btw, i smoked in college for 2 years, and didn't die from it, draw your own conclusions on the safety of cigarette smoking)
So at the end of the day the jackhole you're arguing with believes people should die for refusing a silly treatment for an endemic virus that's roughly on par with the flu. (odd how those flu deaths virtually disappeared during the height of the covid-hysteria)
And finally this is /. -- effete progressives who are incapable of seeing the irony in denigrating half of the US population as being 'maga faux news' adjacent idiots, while slurping up quite literally every thing the DNC's propaganda arm shoves down their throats. You are not free thinking, conscientious people. You are shitty, tribal, and every bit as awful as the right leaning crowd who you claim to despise ever so much.
Re: (Score:3)
You're a disgusting person
I'm done having compassion for idiots who are too stubborn to survive. If you choose death, so be it.
you are giant fucking pussy that will die in the first five minutes of any political conflict between Reds and Blues, Left and Right.
Why the hell would I die in a political conflict? Besides, as far as I'm concerned, just dump them together and add some sarin.
I suspect you couldn't fight your way out of a paper sack and don't own any firearms and probably aren't friendly with anyone who does.
Cute. He thinks a weapon can protect him. Buddy, if it could, the 2nd would have been taken from you before you're done saying "but".
Have fun dying in the civil war you're trying to help start.
I won't. I'll be far away while you're in the cesspool. And when the dust settles, I'll come back and take what's left of what your corpse doesn't need
Re: (Score:3)
You mistake me for someone who cares how he gets modded.
Future is Screwed?.. You Betcha.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The ultimate admission of an indefensible standpoint is to say, "It is not literally illegal to say what I did."
Re: (Score:3)
No he won the injunction based on the claim the the social media companies were acting as agents of the government (otherwise how can their be a 1st amendment violation). The problem with the argument is that even without section 230 the companies have a 1st amendment right to moderate their sites as they see fit.
Why am I not surprised (Score:3, Interesting)
To see who put him on the bench [wikipedia.org]
On August 3, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Doughty to serve as a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,
He was confirmed 98-0, so he wasn't as bad as many of the other appointees, but it seems like whenever I see some ruling echoing Conservative talking points I'm going to find out the judge was appointed by Trump.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
"Conservative talking points" means "respecting the constitution and bill of rights" I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless it has to do with abortion cannabis, or allowing non christian religious displays on government property.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the evidence supporting the "suit alleging government censorship of his statements against vaccines on social media.". If compelling evidence has been offered then the judge may be correct in his ruling. I saw nothing mentioning any evidence though.
Letâ(TM)s just clarify. (Score:3)
As far as measles are concerned: At the moment there are still enough people vaccinated in almost all areas to stop massive spread. But we reached the point where in small areas the illness can spread. At this point, every percent reduction in vaccinations will make the small outbreaks bigger until whole state sized areas are under the required vaccination rate. At that point vaccination doesnâ(TM)t give you herd immunity anymore but only your own individual immunity. (I think measles is bad enough that with 60% successful vaccination rate thdd we 60% would be mostly safe, with the forty percent getting infected almost completely.
Re:Letâ(TM)s just clarify. (Score:5, Informative)
Measles is one of the most infectious diseases known. You need a vaccination rate more like 95% to prevent outbreaks.
https://link.springer.com/cont... [springer.com]
The problem with the other 40% getting it naturally in your scenario is that we keep adding new people, and they happen to be among the most vulnerable. Childhood vaccinations aren't given to children because nurses like making babies cry.
Slam dunk (Score:4, Insightful)
There are ample examples of where the US government told social media companies what information to censor.
There are ample examples of US government holding regular consultations with social media companies where they'd review and vet specific lists of posters to deprecate explicitly for their opinions.
Finally, there are ample examples where US intelligence employees "left" government service to take controlling, policy-setting roles in these organizations to guide and direct their development and curation, reasonably likely (from their own statements, notes, memos, emails) to advance government goals in silencing anyone contra the official party line.
In a world that wasn't upside down, liberals - you know, the ones who used to be against government invading all aspects of private life, unfettered freedom of speech even if 'dangerous', etc - would have been the first ones to object.
But it's "their guys" in charge so...I guess priorities change.
What's tremendously sad is this case will ultimately end up in the Supreme Court (as, reasonably, it's about abuse of federal powers of the Executive) and the quick, obvious decision or any attempt to constrain the Executive will simply fuel the Left's assertion that "if they ain't with us, they agin' us!" (remember how we used to mock Baby Bush for that simpleton's stance?) and thus we should term-limit Justices and/or pack the court with a good dozen or so Left leaning judges to ensure "the right side" wins in the future. ....because if you can't win all the time, you really should insist they change the rules.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Vaccines are safer than water, peanut butter, & the air we breathe.
Umm... considering the water, food and air standards in the US, you might want to choose something else to compare it to...
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com].
https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com].
Re: (Score:3)
It's sort of like with Y2K where there weren't any problems on New Years so the whole thing must have been overblown! Just ignore the decade of work people did preparing for it.
Similarly there have been a lot of successful programs (restrictions, cap-and-trade, better controls) that have reduced the emissions that cause acid rain which is why it's not considered the issue today that it was in the 90s
Re: (Score:2)
Acid rain turned out to be overblown and natural way of things. Emissions haven't decreased yet the prevalence of the issue has.
Bullshit. The prevalence of acid rain has decreased because the component of emissions that cause it, SO2, has decreased even if total emissions haven't. Go research the history of the debate on acid rain. You'll find the same people behind the claims that smoking doesn't cause cancer, CFCs don't destroy the ozone layer, and CO2 emissions don't cause global warming were behind the claims that acid rain wasn't a problem caused by industrial emissions.
Re:FFS (Score:5, Insightful)
So that's a good excuse to suspend the 1st amendment ? Because you feel the vaccines were safe and effective and thus it's warranted for the Federal Government to use its influence and power to suppress what should be protected speech ?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, not necessarily. RFK can be right about this censorship but for all the wrong reasons and still have the facts wrong on the vaccine itself.
Many will take this as vindication that the speech is factually correct but that is not the case. Stupid speech is still protected speech, lies are still protected speech (most of the time), in fact stupid speech is often the most important to protect because it needs protection, due to it being so stupid, and RFK Jr does a lot of stupid speech.
Re: (Score:2)
> RFK can be right about this censorship
Yet many here are saying he shouldn't be and Government should have wide reaching censorship powers.
Glad I don't live in their countries where they vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah the issue is not that RFK says dumb and malicious things it's that people believe those dumb and stupid things with little actual evidence behind it.
No amount of censorship can fix that.
The 1st amendment has limits (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> For public safety issues the government is granted wider authority
The Bill of Rights cannot just be tossed out because the Government says there is a "public safety issue" unfortunately.
> To protect people from stupidity
So whatever the Government says is wrong is now illegal to say. Are you really sure you want to give this power to the Government knowing the OPPOSITION can be elected my dude ?
Never grant to your side powers that you wouldn't want your opponents to use. A lesson you've apparently
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Oddly enough, it can on a temporary basis. Or aren't you aware of the restrictions placed on people during World War II about what they could talk about?
So whatever the Government says is wrong is now illegal to say.
And there's the twistsing. No one ever said the government has made anything illegal. What has been said is that for the public good, you know, that part right
Re: (Score:2)
> Oddly enough, it can on a temporary basis.
War measures Act. Was it invoked ? No ?
Then it can't.
> Republicans are already making certain words and books illegal for people to say or read,
Do you have links to this, or are you referring to things that did not in fact happen, like you'll link me books and I'll find them ready to order with Prime next day on Amazon.com.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The First Amendment was never suspended.
Attacks on free speech were definitely commonplace and much more so during the worst of 2021. The push was coming from pro-pharma folks like yourself and politicians. This is the company you are in as you try your best to somehow equivocate vaccine effectiveness with censorship-justification. Just because the government coerced or paid others to do the censoring, doesn't mean it was right. You're trying to use legal hair-splitting in a discussion about ethics, and it's obvious you're on your back foot here
Re:FFS (Score:4, Interesting)
You sound like a partisan moron with absolutely zero critical thinking skills if this is truly your position.
You're grouping bleach in with vaccines because "Trump said" and you're calling them a partisan moron? Maybe check on your own claims before you start critiquing others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dont get all pissy with me because you actively practice what you critique others for. Bleach isnt a vaccine. Period.
Re:FFS (Score:5, Insightful)
Our Declaration of Independence says “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” but that’s really quite out of order. It should be “liberty, liberty, liberty, life is a distant 10th, and we don’t give a crap about happiness but you’re free to pursue it”
We value personal liberty above everything else, even to the point where YOUR liberty is more important than a risk to MY life”. And we tolerate a surprising amount of one-guy-kills-another-guy sort of violence. Happiness? Like the document says, your happiness is entirely on you. Society doesn’t give a f^*k one way or the other.
I say these things as a proud, patriotic American. We’re weird.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The mass shooting during the super bowl parade.
What in the actual fuck does a mass shooting have to do with censorship? Did you decide to change subjects since it's uncomfortable to defend being a dirty censor?
Re: (Score:2)
50k people die a year from car wrecks.
Even more from heart attacks.
Neither cars nor bad eating + sedentary life style are protected by the constitution. So let's force people to ride bikes everywhere and only eat good food. It's better for them. There will be far fewer deaths.
I assume you never get in a car, exercise daily for a minimum of 30 real minutes and only eat healthy foods so you're good with this plan.
Re:FFS (Score:4, Interesting)
The issue isnt if they are safe or they are are not. The issue is you would never know if they were not because anyone even questioning them was barred from the public square.
Hopefully Kennedy and the courts take these government organs to the woodshed and give them a through beating.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I remember a lot f discussions about the safety and efficacy of the vaccines in the public square.
Now some social media companies did remove posts that contained misleading and false information, but that is well within their 1st amendment rights.
The idea that some on the right claim, that the companies were acting as agents of the government, has no real basis in law.
Re: (Score:2)
> that contained misleading and false information
They also removed a whole lot that were correct information that wasn't convenient at the time. Such as efficacy rates not being as advertised and the risks not being completely nil as stated.
Re: (Score:2)
Good read you 1960s era 4th amendment case history, they absolutely were acting as government agents if they removed stuff at the request of the government.
The fact Kennedy got his injunction suggest the courts agree or at least think they might agree they were acting as agents as well.
Re: (Score:2)
The court seems to disagree with you.
I'm going with a real judge rather than an anonymous /. poster until we get the final court ruling that says you're right.
Re: FFS (Score:2)
His uncle would have said: "Ich bin ein Berliner. You are a donut".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was a rushed job that had to get done, because a Chinese lab intentionally let an engineered virus onto their people. This is not disputed anymore [...]
Nope. It's not disputed anymore. You're just mistaken about it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the podcast version, you don't have to get it from Spotify, but the facts in the podcast turned out to be true. This means I didn't get anything seriously wrong, or wrong enough to void the point. COVID was a lab released virus, by intention, and it all summarizes to government around the world committing acts of bioterrorism on their people.
Re: (Score:3)
OpenVMS 7.3 was the last release for the VAX architecture.