Categories
Corruption Free Speech Government Overreach Reprints from others. The Courts The Law

Judge: Biden Admin Violated Doctor’s First Amendment Rights

Bhattacharya is a professor of medicine, economics and health research policy at Stanford University, where he serves as director of the Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging.

Exerting a pressure campaign on social media companies to censor COVID-19 skeptics

A federal appeals court ruled that the White House, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FBI, and the surgeon general violated a Stanford doctor’s First Amendment rights by using social media to silence him by exerting a pressure campaign on social media companies to censor COVID-19 skeptics — including Stanford epidemiologist Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.

“I think this ruling is akin to the second Enlightenment,” Bhattacharya told The Post. “It’s a ruling that says there’s a democracy of ideas. The issue is not whether the ideas are wrong or right. The question is who gets to control what ideas are expressed in the public square?”

The court ordered that the Biden administration and other federal agencies “shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly” to coerce social media companies “to remove, delete, suppress or reduce” free speech.

Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine, economics, and health research policy at Stanford University, co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration in the fall of 2020 with professors from Harvard and Oxford.

The epidemiologists advocated for “focused protection” — safeguarding the most vulnerable Americans while cautiously allowing others to function as normally as possible — rather than broad pandemic lockdowns.

The court ordered that the Biden administration and other federal agencies “shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly” to coerce social media companies “to remove, delete, suppress or reduce” free speech.

The court ordered that the Biden administration and other federal agencies “shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly” to coerce social media companies “to remove, delete, suppress or reduce” free speech.

Bhattacharya, a professor of medicine, economics, and health research policy at Stanford University, co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration in the fall of 2020 with professors from Harvard and Oxford.

The epidemiologists advocated for “focused protection” — safeguarding the most vulnerable Americans while cautiously allowing others to function as normally as possible — rather than broad pandemic lockdowns.

“The government had a vast censorship enterprise,” Bhattacharya said. “It was systematically used to threaten and coerce and jawbone and tell all these social media companies, ‘You better listen to us: Censor these people, censor these ideas, or else.’”

It was later revealed that then-NIH director Dr. Francis Collins called for a “swift and devastating takedown” of Bhattacharya and his co-authors — whom Collins dubbed “fringe epidemiologists” — in an email to Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Subsequent reporting from Elon Musk’s so-called Twitter Files — internal documents and communications released by Musk, after he bought the platform, to expose Twitter’s inner workings — revealed that Bhattachrya’s profile was being suppressed on the platform.

 A landmark case in curbing the influence the government has over social media

“It’s akin to the efforts by governments to suppress the printing press when it first was invented, when books represented an enormous threat to power,” Bhattacharya said, referring to efforts by King Henry VIII and the Catholic Church to curb use of the printing press in the 16th century.

“There’s an analogous fight that’s currently going on with social media, which makes it vastly easier for anybody to express their ideas, and very powerful people find that incredibly threatening.”

The September 8 ruling affirmed but narrowed a lower court order, issued on July 4 by US District Judge Terry Doughty, which found that the Biden administration and other federal agencies “engaged in a years-long pressure campaign [on social media outlets] designed to ensure that the censorship aligned with the government’s preferred viewpoints” and that “the platforms, in capitulation to state-sponsored pressure, changed their moderation policies.

Bhattacharya says the first victory, although in a lower court, was the most exciting to him.

“I was just absolutely thrilled, especially to have it on July 4th,” he said. “I think that judge was sending a message by issuing this ruling on July 4th that we’re going to restore free speech in this country.”

The Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court on Thursday — a move that Bhattacharya anticipated.

But he believes it’s “unlikely” the Supreme Court will overturn the Fifth Circuit’s decision.

He feels his is a landmark case in curbing the influence the government has over social media — on matters that extend far beyond just COVID-19 and lockdowns.

“This new technology has created enormous opportunities for people to participate in debate in the public square,” Bhattacharya said. “And I hope that this is the beginning of a legal infrastructure that enables that to happen rather than the opposite, which is a dark age where the government gets to decide what’s true and what’s allowed to be said.”

Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Crime Immigration Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics The Courts The Law

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott accuses Biden administration of cutting razor wire at border.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott accuses Biden administration of cutting razor wire at border. Texas National Guard installing more razor wire. The Governor has claimed that the Biden thugs turn around and cut the wire. So more National Guardsman have been sent to replace the wire.

In July, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Texas for installing a buoy barrier, which was designed to curb illegal immigration, on the Rio Grande. The barrier was developed as part of Abbott’s Operation Lone Star.

A federal judge initially told Texas to move the buoys, but the U.S. Court of Appeals stayed that decision. The case is still being deliberated through courts.


Stop the trespass. Border buoys float on the Rio Grande River in Eagle Pass, Texas. (Omar Ornelas / El Paso Times / USA TODAY NETWORK / File / Fox News)

Categories
Child Abuse Commentary Crime Human Traficking Links from other news sources. The Courts The Law

So when do we deport these criminals? Texas judge who previously deemed DACA illegal reaffirms ruling.

So, when do we deport these criminals? Texas judge who previously deemed DACA illegal reaffirms ruling. Children who were without their permission (Remember the progressives feel that children’s rights are more important) were forcibly brought here right? We have this from FOX News.

A revised version of the federal policy known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which prevents the deportation of thousands of immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, has once again been deemed illegal by a federal judge who gave the same ruling previously.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen said in his decision Wednesday that on July 16, 2021, the court vacated the DACA program created by the 2012 DACA Memorandum, which prohibited the U.S., its departments, agencies, officers, agents and employees from granting new DACA applications and administering the program.

Hanen’s decision then was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Wednesday, reaffirmed by him. Send them home.

Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Elections Government Overreach Links from other news sources. The Courts The Law

Appeals court overrules affirmative action judge.

Appeals court overrules affirmative action judge. Affirmative action judge Steve Jones denied Mark Meadows to move his trial to Federal Court. He also denied granting a stay until an appeal is filed. So, Meadows went to a real judge. We have this from ABC News.

 

An appeals court on Wednesday granted former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows’ request for an expedited review of his emergency motion seeking to block a lower court’s ruling that kept his Georgia election interference case in state court.

Meadows filed the request for an emergency stay with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals after Judge Steve Jones last week rejected Meadows’ bid to have his case moved, based on a federal law that calls for the removal of criminal proceedings brought in state court to the federal court system when someone is charged for actions they allegedly took as a federal official acting “under color” of their office.

Categories
Censorship Child Abuse Corruption Links from other news sources. The Courts The Law Transgender

Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina and Texas had bills introduced in 2023 that would require districts to disclose a trans student’s gender identity to parents.

Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina and Texas had bills introduced in 2023 that would require districts to disclose a trans student’s gender identity to parents.

And why shouldn’t a parent have a right to know if a teacher or a school is hiding from parents this personal information? California requires a school to contact a parent if they want to give a child an aspirin, but you have an AG who wants to sue school districts that notify parents on what goes on in reference to schools who want parent notification.

“It’s disgusting that we now have union-controlled politicians fighting to keep sexual secrets from other people’s children,” said Corey DeAngelis, a senior fellow at the American Federation for Children, in an email to The Center Square. “These radicals believe children are the property of the State, and many of them won’t reverse course any time soon because it’s part of their deeply held socialist views. The far left has infiltrated the government school system and they are using it for ideological indoctrination as opposed to education. These extremists see the school system as a means of raising other people’s children with their own worldview, and they won’t stop without accountability.”

What say you?

Categories
Commentary Crime Government Overreach Gun Control Leftist Virtue(!) Links from other news sources. Social Venues-Twitter The Law

When White Progressive Supremacist supporter goes too far. Other Progressives call out the New Mexico Governor.

When White Progressive Supremacist supporter goes too far. Other Progressives call out the New Mexico Governor. Recently the Governor claimed she was suspending the Constitution because Liberals were the cause of many gun crimes and drug trafficking’s.

But even other left wing fanatics attacked her craziness.

https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/1700589909390835901?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1700589909390835901%7Ctwgr%5Edac98cfcda5b90445124c124d1b672ac6d701274%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegatewaypundit.com%2F2023%2F09%2Fnew-mexico-governors-unconstitutional-gun-grab-so-top%2F

Categories
Censorship Commentary Government Overreach How sick is this? Links from other news sources. Opinion Politics The Courts The Law

Why do Progressives have issues with the First Amendment? Musk sues California.

Why do Progressives have issues with the First Amendment? Musk sues California. If it’s not California, it’s New York, If it’s not Illinois it’s Massachusetts, and it goes on and on.

But all have the same thing in common. Violating people’s first Amendment rights. If it’s not parents it’s other politicians, lawyers, or people from the business world like Musk.

In Musk’s case, they’re not going after him in court, California is passing laws that take away free speech. What’s next with these loons?

 

Categories
Censorship Commentary Corruption Government Overreach Links from other news sources. Reprints from others. The Law Uncategorized White Progressive Supremacy

Victory for free speech as mayor backs down from censorship campaign Had ripped down flyers from parental rights group.

Victory for free speech as mayor backs down from censorship campaign. Had ripped down flyers from parental rights group.

The mayor of Newburyport, Massachusetts, decided he didn’t like the message being offered in his community by a parental rights organization.

That group, Citizens for Responsible Education, had concerns regarding public school indoctrination and certain troubling instruction happening locally.

So members planned a forum, called “What is Social-Emotional Learning? What every parent needs to know about SEL and culturally responsive teaching in our public schools.”

Subjects to be covered include critical race theory; gender identity ideology; sex education curriculum; and diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

That was a message Mayor Sean Reardon decided he would not tolerate. So when the parents posted flyers advertising their meeting, Reardon ripped them down.

Now the resolution to that fight has resulted in a significant victory for free speech, according to a report from the American Center for Law and Justice.

“In addition to receiving a monetary payment to cover the damages CRE suffered, Newburyport’s Mayor Reardon agreed to issue a public statement acknowledging that his actions in ‘remov[ing] flyers from bulletin boards’ and the city’s posting policies should have better promoted the constitutionally protected free speech rights of CRE and, in the future, postings may not be censored based on their content or the viewpoints expressed,” the ACLJ reported.

“Additionally, Newburyport has agreed to revise its posting policies by removing its prohibition on religious flyers and its vague flyer review and approval process.”

The ACLJ reported that Matt Petry, a reporter for The Daily News of Newburyport, posted on social media that Reardon had confirmed he was ripping down the flyers.

The mayor claimed, to the reporter, the content “was not in line with the city of Newburyport’s values of being an inclusive and welcoming community.”

The parents initially asked the city to change its posting policy, but the city refused to respond.

Then, the ACLJ reported, the Massachusetts Family Institute and Attorney Kenneth A. Tashjy served a demand letter on the city, warning the policy was unconstitutional and a willful violation of free speech rights.

Article first found at the The Daily News of Newburyport.

Categories
Biden Cartel Commentary Corruption Crime Links from other news sources. Public Service Announcement Reprints from others. The Courts The Law

Arizona judge rules common practice of validating ballot signatures illegal.

Arizona judge rules common practice of validating ballot signatures illegal.

By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services

A practice used by some, if not all, Arizona counties to verify signatures on early ballots may be illegal.

And that could result in election officials across the state have to change their procedures – and potentially result in more signatures on ballot envelopes being questioned.

Yavapai County Superior Court Judge John Napper, said state law is “clear and unambiguous” that election officials must compare the signatures on the envelopes with the voter’s actual registration record. And that, he said, consists only of the document signed when a person first registered along with subsequent changes for things like altering party affiliation.

And what that means, the judge said, is it is illegal for county election officials to instead use other documents to determine if the signature on that ballot envelope is correct and should be accepted.

John Napper

Napper’s conclusion is not the last word.

Strictly speaking, he only rejected efforts by Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to have the lawsuit by two groups challenging the process thrown out. Napper has not issued a final order.

“We look forward to the issue being litigated,” said Paul Smith-Leonard, spokesman for Fontes.

But the judge, in his ruling, made it clear that he is not buying arguments by the secretary of state that the rules in the Elections Procedures Manual allowing the comparison of signatures against other documents – the practice now widely in use – complies with what state law clearly requires.

And Kory Langhofer, who represents those challenging the practice, said Napper’s refusal to dismiss the case means “there’s nothing left to fight about.”

Central to the fight is a section of law which requires the county recorder, on receiving early ballots, to “compare the signatures thereon with the signature of the elector on the elector’s registration record.”

Langhofer, in his court filing, acknowledged that there is nothing in state law that explicitly defines what is a “registration record.”

But he argued that “most naturally” means the state or federal documents by which someone signs up to vote and provides certain other information. And what it also includes, Langhofer said, are updated state or federal forms.

Only thing is, he said, is the most recent version of the Elections Procedures Manual, prepared by the Secretary of State’s Office, says county recorders “should also consult additional known signatures from other official election documents in the voter’s registration record, such as signature rosters or early ballot request forms.”

In some cases, Langhofer said, counties are using signatures on early ballot envelopes from prior elections for their comparisons.

Pima County Recorder Gabriella Cazares-Kelly doesn’t go that far. But she said her office relies on much more than the voter registration record.

It starts, she said, with the fact that some people register to vote when they get a driver’s license. But those licenses, she noted, can be good for up to 45 years.

“As everybody should know, signatures vary by time and place and how much time you have,” Cazares-Kelly said. “You will change your signature a number of times throughout your life, going from adolescent to full adulthood.”

And she said even her own signature changes given having to sign “a hundred documents a day.”

So other documents can be helpful.

“We receive other notifications from the voters,” Cazares-Kelly said.

“Every single time we receive something in writing, it goes into their voter file,” she continued. “So every single thing that has a signature on it, it is another indication, another touch point, another opportunity to update what those signatures look like.

Cochise County Recorder David Stevens said his office also relies on signatures on other correspondence it has received from a voter. He also said that ballot signatures can be compared with those on file with the Motor Vehicle Division.

Fontes, in asking Napper to dismiss the lawsuit, argued that other documents listed as acceptable in the Elections Procedures Manual are within the definition of a “registration record.” And if the judge wasn’t buying that, Fontes said that phrase is ambiguous, meaning that the manual can interpret it as part of his duties.

Napper was having none of that.

“The language of the statute is clear and unambiguous,” the judge wrote. “The common meaning of ‘registration’ in the English language is to sign up to participate in an activity.”

And Napper derided the idea that other documents submitted by a voter fit that definition.

“No English speaker would linguistically confuse the acting of signing up to participate in an event with the act of participating in the event,” the judge wrote.

“Registering to attend law school is not the same as attending class,” he continued. “Registering to vote is not the same as voting.”

Nor was Napper impressed by the claim that the phrase “registration record” is ambiguous, allowing the secretary of state some latitude to interpret it.

“Pursuant to the statute, the recorder is to compare the signature on the envelope with the voter’s prior registration,” he said, quoting from the law. “If they match, then the vote is counted.”

The judge also noted there is a procedure in state law that allows county election officials, if they question whether a signature on a ballot matches the official record, to contact the voter. That allows the voter to verify that it is his or her signature and offer an explanation that could be related to age, illness or injury.

Langhofer represents the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. It has backed various measures to impose new identification requirements on voters while opposing efforts to restore the state’s permanent early voting list.

Also suing is an organization called Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections. It bills itself as opposing laws changes in election laws that seek to give one group a partisan advantage and enforcing “constitutional standards against voting laws and procedures that threaten or dilute the right of qualified citizens to vote.”

Reuters says that that founders of RITE, formed last year, include former U.S. Attorney General William Barr, Karl Rove who was a top adviser to former President George W. Bush, and hotelier Steve Wynn.

Categories
Commentary Crime Links from other news sources. Progressive Racism The Law White Progressive Supremacy

Over 60 Lions of Liberalism ( Antifa ) arrested in Georgia riots.

Over 60 Lions of Liberalism ( Antifa ) arrested in Georgia riots. Leftists always love a good riot. It never fails. Build something good, and they will come. Bringing their violent acts with them.

Well we see that they have been rioting the past year or so trying to shit down a police training center. Allegedly the government has stepped in. Over 60 Antifa militants have been indicted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act over the Atlanta “Cop City” riots and attacks on officers.

I see one of the rioters works for a noted hate group. Tom Jurgens, appears to be a staff attorney for a far-left extremist organization, the Southern Poverty Law Center.

SMH.