Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.


Fauci And The U.S. Gov’t Are Being SUED For Colluding With Big Tech To Silence Lockdown Skeptics

Become a Clash Insider!

Don’t let Big Tech pre-chew your news. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we’ll keep you in the loop.

The lawsuit aims to prove that the Biden administration colluded with Big Tech to silence lockdown dissenters including the signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration.

Two of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, Drs. Jay Battacharya and Martin Kuldorff, along with others are suing the government and Dr. Anthony Fauci for colluding with Big Tech to censor their speech.

They cite the threat to free speech and are accusing the government of putting pressure on Big Tech companies like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Google to censor opposing views calling it “COVID misinformation.”

Dr. Battacharya, in an interview with Freddie Sayers of Unheard, says that it was a “coordinated propaganda campaign to silence critics of government censorship policies” and that the government used social media and the press to “discredit and censor those who disagree with government lockdown policies.”

He also says that the silencing of dissent is antithetical to scientific inquiry.

‘Yesterday’s “misinformation”’, the lawsuit reads, ‘often becomes today’s viable theory and tomorrow’s established fact.’ A coordinated response to material deemed Covid ‘misinformation’, the legal team at the New Civil Liberties Alliance argue, came at the cost of scientific rigour.

Bhattacharya tells UnHerd that “there was a debate going on inside the scientific community, and Tony Fauci and the federal government of the United States could not abide that […] because they implemented an extraordinary policy that required absolute consensus.” Further, they “suppressed and censored and smeared” any reasoned but critical voices through social media and the mainstream press. Bhattacharya stresses, “My primary motivation here is to recreate or maybe regain an environment where active scientific work can happen.”

Joining Bhattacharya was Jenin Younes, a lawyer involved in the case now developing in a federal district court, but which looks likely to eventually reach the Supreme Court. Younes condemns the online censorship which resulted from governmental overreach, saying, “If you lose your Twitter account, for many people you’re losing your voice and the ability to influence public opinion.”
Source: Unheard

“Many viewpoints and speakers have been unlawfully and unconstitutionally silenced in the modern public square,” states the lawsuit.

Here is Freddie Sayers interviewing Dr. Battacharya and attorney Jenin Younes about the case.

If you recall, the “Great Barrington Declaration” was written in late 2020 by a trio of medical experts — Dr. Martin Kuldorff, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, and Dr. Jay Battacharya — and signed by thousands of others that advocated a plan of “focused protection” of those at risk for serious illness from COVID-19 rather than locking down all of society.

ClashDaily posted the entire declaration here:

Just days after the Declaration was published, the World Health Organization’s Special Envoy on COVID-19 expressed concern about the knee-jerk reaction by governments to use universal lockdowns and the primary control measure to prevent the spread of the virus. He said that lockdowns would have wide-ranging and lasting effects, including exacerbating poverty in developing nations and… affecting the supply chain.

This was the standard for pandemic plans created by Western democracies; but were suddenly tossed aside (except, notably in Sweden and the “free state” of Florida,) in favor of the Chinese Communist-style lockdowns because of the “novel” coronavirus that we were still learning about.

Even as we learned more, Western democracies refused to “follow the science” and doubled down on lockdown.

But it became even more insidious — social media companies, seemingly at the behest of government officials, were censoring dissent and calls for a return to normalcy. The “new normal” of lockdowns, universal masking, and school closures were promoted while critiques and calls for a reassessment of these policies that caused enormous suffering were downplayed.

From the lawsuit:

A private entity violates the First Amendment “if the government coerces or induces it to take action the government itself would not be permitted to do, such as censor expression of a lawful viewpoint.” Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia Univ., 141 S. Ct. 1220, 1226 (2021) (Thomas, J., concurring). “The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.”

That is exactly what has occurred over the past several years, beginning with express and implied threats from government officials and culminating in the Biden Administration’s open and explicit censorship programs. Having threatened and cajoled social-media platforms for years to censor viewpoints and speakers disfavored by the Left, senior government officials in the Executive Branch have moved into a phase of open collusion with social-media companies to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social-media platforms under the Orwellian guise of halting so-called “disinformation,” “misinformation,” and “malinformation.”

The lawsuit also states that the government has been directing social media censorship of individuals and cites five instances of this:

  1. absent federal intervention, common-law and statutory doctrines, as well as voluntary conduct and natural free-market forces, would have restrained the emergence of censorship and suppression of speech of disfavored speakers, content, and viewpoint on social media; and yet
  2. through Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) and other actions, the federal government subsidized, fostered, encouraged, and empowered the creation of a small number of massive social-media companies with disproportionate ability to censor and suppress speech on the basis of speaker, content, and viewpoint;
  3. such inducements as Section 230 and other legal benefits (such as the absence of antitrust enforcement) constitute an immensely valuable benefit to social-media platforms and incentive to do the bidding of federal officials
  4. federal officials—including, most notably, certain Defendants herein—have repeatedly and aggressively threatened to remove these legal benefits and impose other adverse consequences on social-media platforms if they do not aggressively censor and suppress disfavored speakers, content, and viewpoints on their platforms; and
  5. Defendants herein, colluding and coordinating with each other, have also directly coordinated and colluded with social-media platforms to identify disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content and thus have procured the actual censorship and suppression of the freedom of speech. These factors are both individually and collectively sufficient to establish government action in the censorship and suppression of social-media speech, especially given the inherent power imbalance: not only do the government actors here have the power to penalize noncompliant companies, but they have threatened to exercise that authority.

The lawsuit is moving to the “discovery” phase — this will be eye-opening.

Back in 2021, when Jen Psaki was White House Press Secretary, she admitted that Senior White House officials are in contact with Facebook and are “flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.”

That’s pretty damning.

And now, some of the medical experts that pushed lockdowns and vaccines are realizing that they were wrong.

The lockdown response to COVID has been the greatest public health screw-up that will leave lasting harm for generations.

Gee, maybe the government pushing for social media to censor medical experts who opposed lockdowns is a bad idea.

If only someone had said that in 2020… Oh, wait… ClashDaily did just that… and got “downgraded” for it.

Dear Christian: Your Fear Is Full of Crap

by Doug Giles

Beginning in March 2020, many Christians went into lockdown-freak-out mode. Uncut, irrational, unbiblical, and not to mention, unconstitutional, fear gripped many churches and church leaders. Forced to choose between obeying the Word of God or the edict of man, most Western Churches buckled. We even saw it here in First Amendment-protected America.

The Apostle Peter buckled to fear on the night of Christ’s crucifixion. But he learned his lesson and lived the rest of his life bold as a lion. How can the church ‘go and do likewise’?

Read the book and find out!

Get your copy of Dear Christian: Your Fear Is Full of Crap now. Better yet, grab an extra copy for any petrified pastor who dutifully put obedience to the unconstitutional edicts of Mayor McCheese ahead of obedience to the explicit commandments of the LORD God Almighty.

K. Walker

ClashDaily's Associate Editor since August 2016. Self-described political junkie, anti-Third Wave Feminist, and a nightmare to the 'intersectional' crowd. Mrs. Walker has taken a stand against 'white privilege' education in public schools. She's also an amateur Playwright, former Drama teacher, and staunch defender of the Oxford comma. Follow her humble musings on Twitter: @TheMrsKnowItAll and on Gettr @KarenWalker

Related Articles