RFK Jr. Files Class Action Against US Officials Over Censorship.
He's not waiting to become President to represent you.
Are you a consumer of news on social media platforms?
If so, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is suing Joe Biden, Anthony Fauci, the FBI, and 55 other government officials and agencies on your behalf, for censoring your constitutionally protected speech and breaching your constitutional right to receive information and ideas.
RFK Jr recently announced that he is considering running for President but he’s not waiting to be elected to “end the corrupt merger between state and corporate power” aka fascism.
He filed this class action lawsuit on behalf of you and the more than 80% of Americans who access news online, including on Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter.
But don’t run out and buy a new Tesla based on the idea you are going to win big bucks in this lawsuit, the suit simply “seeks declaratory and injunctive relief (no damages are sought)” that is, to have the court rule that they can not do this anymore.
The recent suit names Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Karine Jean-Pierre, Vivek H. Murthy, Xavier Becerra, Dr. Anthony Fauci, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Carol Y. Crawford, the United States Census Bureau, Jennifer Shopkorn, Department of Commerce; Alejandro Mayorkas, Robert Silvers, Samantha Vinograd, Department of Homeland Security; Jen Easterly, Gina McCarthy, Nina Jankowicz, Andrew Slavitt, Rob Flaherty, Courtney Rowe, Clarke Humphrey, Benjamin Wakana, Dana Remus, Aisha Shah, Laura Rosenberger, Mina Hsiang, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Laura Dehmlow, Elvis M. Chan, Jay Dempsey, Eric Waldo, Yolanda Byrd, Christy Choi, Tericka Lambert, Joshua Peck, Janell Muhammed, Matthew Masterson, Lauren Protentis, Geoffrey Hale, Allison Snell, Brian Scully, Zachary Henry Schwartz, Lorena Molina-Irizarry, Kristin Galemore, Erica Jefferson, Michael Murray, Brad Kimberly, U.S. Department of State, Samaruddin K. Stewart, Daniel Kimmage, Alexis Frisbie, U.S. Department of Treasury, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Mark A. Robbins, and Kristen Muthig as defendants.
The suit elucidates how each has conspired to violate our rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The defendants can not claim qualified immunity because sovereign immunity has been expressly waived by the Administrative Procedure Act. “Federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over [constitutional] suits seeking declaratory and injunctive relief because the APA waives [a] federal agency’s sovereign immunity even when the claim is one directly under the Constitution and not under the APA” (Bolger v District of Columbia)
The main basis of the suit is the Norwood principle:
A half-century ago, in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), the Supreme Court reaffirmed what the Justices called an “axiomatic” principle of constitutional law.
The Court set forth this principle categorically, without qualification or dissent.
The principle was this: government “may not induce, encourage, or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”
The Norwood principle is “axiomatic” because, without it, government actors could
evade nearly every prohibition in the Bill of Rights through the simple expedient of inducing private parties to do what the Constitution bars the government from doing directly.
“an ever-growing army of federal officers, at every level of the government—
from the White House itself to the FBI, the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, the CDC, the Office of the Surgeon General, and numerous less-well-known federal entities—has been engaged in the effort to induce those companies to censor constitutionally protected speech.”
“Through this censorship campaign, federal agents and agencies have encouraged,
promoted, and induced those companies to stifle viewpoints that the government disfavors, to suppress facts that the government does not want the public to hear, and to silence specific speakers—in every case critics of federal policy—whom the government has targeted by name”
It is “a core postulate of free speech law” that the “government may not discriminate against speech based on the ideas or opinions it conveys.” (Iancu v. Brunetti & Ashcroft v. ACLU)
“The federal government’s censorship campaign has repeatedly, systematically, and
very successfully targeted constitutionally protected speech on the basis of its content and viewpoint.” A few of the examples that are given that constitutionally protected speech was suppressed on the basis of its content and viewpoint are the Hunter Biden laptop, COVID origins, and suppression of facts and opinions about the COVID vaccines.
“Oh my God, there’s been an outbreak of chocolatey goodness near Hershey, Pennsylvania. What do you think happened? Like, ‘Oh I don’t know, maybe a steam shovel mated with a cocoa bean?’ Or it’s the fucking chocolate factory.” – Jon Stewart
The inducement and coercion to censor have been reiterated over and over, do as we say or else. Else we will repeal your Section 230 protections, else we will break up your company based on antitrust provisions, or else be subject to civil liability and even criminal prosecution.
The 120-page lawsuit includes specific examples of how each defendant violated the First Amendment of our Constitution. I encourage you to read it.
My work is 100% reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Twitter, and/or purchasing a subscription.
Read more: