CITIZENS NEWS

NCLA sues federal government and social media giants for censoring vaccine injury testimonials

By ljdevon // 2024-09-19

The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) has filed a lawsuit against federal agencies and major social media platforms, carefully documenting a conspiracy to suppress the voices of individuals who have suffered adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines. The lawsuit, Dressen, et al. v. Flaherty, et al., centers around the experiences of six plaintiffs who reported severe side effects after receiving COVID-19 vaccinations. These include Brianne Dressen, Shaun Barcavage, Kristi Dobbs, Nikki Holland, Suzanna Newell and Ernest Ramirez. Ramirez's case is particularly tragic, as his son died five days after receiving the vaccine. The plaintiffs' vaccine injury testimonials essentially represent the stories of millions of others, who were also harmed. The NCLA documents how federal agencies, including the White House, the CDC and the Surgeon General's Office, pressured social media companies to remove and discredit posts and discussions about vaccine injuries. The lawsuit seeks an injunction against this alleged state-sponsored censorship, asserting that such actions violate the First Amendment rights to free speech and association. The NCLA contends that these suppression efforts not only infringe upon the plaintiffs’ rights but also stifle crucial discussions regarding vaccine safety and individual health autonomy.

The following points are discussed in the lawsuit, with accompanying citations:

• Censorship of Personal Experiences: Plaintiffs reported instances where their posts detailing personal medical experiences after receiving the Covid vaccine were flagged or removed as "misinformation."
• Removal of Support Groups: Private support groups for vaccine-injured individuals were shut down by Facebook at the request of government officials, restricting their ability to connect and share information.
• Shadow Banning: Plaintiffs experienced shadow banning on social media platforms, limiting the visibility of their posts and comments related to vaccine-related injuries.
• Warnings for “False Information”: Posts that contained personal anecdotes about vaccine injuries received warnings from social media platforms labeling them as false information.
• Removal of Fundraising Campaigns: GoFundMe account for Mr. Ramirez, aimed at raising awareness for his lost son, was removed for violating the platform's terms of service.
• Invasive Monitoring: The CDC engaged in monitoring discussions within private Facebook groups about vaccine injuries, leading to flagged content based on government-defined misinformation.
• Suppression of Documentaries: Videos discussing vaccine injuries and featuring plaintiffs were removed from platforms like YouTube and Vimeo as “medical misinformation,” despite being based on personal testimonials.
• Legislative Threats: Government officials reportedly threatened to withdraw Section 230 protections from social media companies unless they increased censorship of vaccine-related speech.
• Direct Requests for Censorship: Emails and communications from White House officials explicitly requested the removal of posts from individual users sharing their vaccine injury testimonials.
• No Appeal Process: When plaintiffs appealed the removals of their posts, they received vague or no explanations, making it challenging to address perceived censorship.
• Removal of Established Support Content: Scientific articles or news pieces shared by plaintiffs regarding vaccine side effects were flagged or removed for allegedly spreading misinformation.
• Conditional Access to Features: Platforms like Facebook threatened to reduce the reach of plaintiffs’ posts if they were found to share misinformation, creating a chilling effect of self-censorship.
• Preemptive Censorship: Social media companies admitted to proactively censoring content that did not inherently violate their policies but was deemed potentially harmful by government standards.
• Content Removal Without Clear Grounds: Posts were taken down for vague reasons such as “potential spam” or “violating community standards,” without specific detailing of the offending content.
• Restrictive Algorithms: Social media companies adjusted algorithms based on government pressure to limit the reach of posts that could be deemed vaccine-hesitant or critical of government mandates.
• Use of Code Words: Plaintiffs felt compelled to use code words in discussions about vaccines and side effects to avoid censorship, indicating a restriction on their free speech.
• Public Discrediting: The Surgeon General and other officials publicly labeled social media platforms as “dangerous” for failing to censor enough content, creating societal stigma for plaintiffs.
• Quasi-Government Pressure: The coordination between the Virality Project and social media companies to suppress content represented a form of collusion that directly attacked plaintiffs’ rights.
• Loss of Donations: The inability of Mr. Ramirez to raise funds through GoFundMe due to platform removal of his campaign constituted a suppression of his ability to speak about his tragic experience.
• Impact on Mental Health: The overall atmosphere of censorship and suppression led to heightened feelings of depression and isolation among the plaintiffs as they struggled to find a community to support their experiences.

The plaintiffs have faced relentless censorship on social media platforms where they sought support and shared information about their experiences. Their attempts to create and maintain private online groups dedicated to discussing vaccine injuries and potential treatments were met with content flags, removals, and the outright shutdown of their communities. "This is a case that exemplifies the Orwellian consequences that take place when the government evades its restraint," said Casey Norman, Litigation Counsel at NCLA. "The time has come for the federal government and its private partners in this cruel censorship scheme to be held to account for the ongoing harm that they have caused." Government officials named in the suit include:

• Rob Flaherty (White House Director of Digital Strategy)
• Joseph R. Biden Jr. (President of the United States)
• Karine Jean-Pierre (White House Press Secretary)
• Andrew Slavitt (Senior Advisor to the Covid-19 Response Coordinator)
• Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
• Dr. Vivek Murthy (Surgeon General of the United States)
• Stanford University (Stanford Internet Observatory - SIO)
• Xavier Becerra (Secretary of HHS)
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
• Carol Crawford (Chief of the Digital Media Branch of the Division of Public Affairs within the CDC)
• Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
• Alejandro Mayorkas (Secretary of DHS)
• Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)
• Jen Easterly (Director of CISA within DHS)
• The Leland Stanford Junior University (Stanford University)
• Alex Stamos (in his official and individual capacities)
• Renee DiResta (in her official and individual capacities)

For further details, you can access a copy of the lawsuit here. Sources include: ReclaimtheNet.org Docs.reclaimthenet.org [PDF]

glitch mental health vaccines free speech First Amendment censorship vaccine damage conspiracy vaccine injury testimonials mind control big government totalitarianism thought police abuse truth health freedom Medical Tyranny collusion Orwellian suppressed progress speech police Big Tech outrage dictatorship Section 230 liberty vaccine wars dangerous misinformation Biden regime legislative threats free speech lawsuit