The New Civil Liberties Alliance is a non-profit civil rights group. On May 22, 2023, it filed a lawsuit
challenging the federal government’s ongoing efforts to work in concert with social media companies and the Stanford Internet Observatory’s Virality Project to monitor and censor online support groups catering to those injured by Covid vaccines. This sprawling censorship enterprise has combined the efforts of numerous federal agencies and government actors—including within the White House—to coerce and induce social media platforms to censor, suppress, and label as “misinformation” speech expressed by those who have suffered vaccine-related injuries. In Brianne Dressen, et al. v. Rob Flaherty, et al., NCLA urges the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to enjoin this government-sponsored censorship and declare this state action unlawful to prevent these Defendants from further censoring such free speech and free association.
NCLA represents Brianne Dressen, Shaun Barcavage, Kristi Dobbs, Nikki Holland, Suzanna Newell, and Ernest Ramirez. All but Mr. Ramirez have suffered vaccine-related injuries. To be clear, these Plaintiffs are not anti-vaxxers. Ms. Dressen, for example, was injured by the AstraZeneca vaccine after she volunteered to participate in vaccine trials for that vaccine. Mr. Ramirez received a Moderna vaccine himself without incident but then lost his 16-year-old son to vaccine-induced cardiac arrest five days after Ernest, Jr. received the Pfizer vaccine. While such vaccine injuries may be rare, further research is necessary to establish the incidence of serious, even fatal, side effects for these still-new vaccines. Meanwhile, the First Amendment forbids Defendants from suppressing the speech and association rights of innocent victims who are just seeking to commiserate with other sufferers.
The suit alleges:
This case challenges the government’s mass-censorship program and the shocking role that it has played (and still plays) in ensuring that disfavored viewpoints deemed a threat to its agenda are suppressed. This sprawling censorship enterprise has involved the efforts of myriad federal agencies and government actors (including within the White House itself) to direct, coerce, and, ultimately, work in concert with social media platforms to censor, muffle, and flag as “misinformation” speech that conflicts with the government’s preferred narrative—including speech that the government explicitly acknowledges to be true.
A lot of people blame symptoms on the vaccines. Let them complain, you might see a pattern that leads to verifiable vaccine related illnesses. Suppressing information give big pharma freedom to continue hiding the truth in order to make big profits. No company should be allowed to suppress negative feedback but with unregulated lawsuit settlements I can’t say as I blame them. Settlements need to be based on the needs of the vaccines. It’s expected to have side effects with a percentage of individuals because humans are only 98 percent identical. But to save 98 percent of the population from dying during a pandemic, it justifies the 2 percent victims. So is it fair to let the 2 percent sue the profits off big pharma. I think they deserve 2 percent of the profits delegated to the victims. The victims who have the most severe symptoms should receive the biggest part of the settlement. How do you judge severity though when each individual thinks their symptoms are worse than everyone else’s. So it’s a can of worms, but you can’t suppress feedback to minimize your losses to those you fucked up with your general purpose vaccine.
Alan, Watch this if you haven’t yet seen it: https://rumble.com/v2p041k-the-unvaccinated-nobody-is-safe.html