CDZ Federal Government Illegally Pressured Facebook to Censor CHD Website, Social Media Content, Lawsuit Alleges

[phoenyx]

Found an article over at RFK Jr.'s Children's Health Defense website, published on Thursday, will quote a bit of it below. Constructive feedback welcome.

**
04/09/21

By Children's Health Defense Team

In August 2020, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed a lawsuit against Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and two of Facebook’s “fact checkers.” The lawsuit asserts claims of illegal censorship in violation of the First Amendment, illegal “taking” in violation of the Fifth Amendment and corporate fraud in violation of federal law — Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) and Lanham Acts.
**

Full article here:

Federal Government Illegally Pressured Facebook to Censor CHD Website, Social Media Content, Lawsuit Alleges

Children’s Health Defense has made significant progress in the case against Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg since the last court filing, and looks forward to its next court date, May 5.

childrenshealthdefense.org

 

[pknopp]

It will be interesting to see if they can prove a link to the government.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

RFK Jr. is a loon.

 

[phoenyx]

It will be interesting to see if they can prove a link to the government.

I think the article itself has some pretty interesting info. Here's a bit more of it, with the last quoted bit in bold:
**
On Nov.13, 2020, CHD filed a 150-page first amended complaint in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, detailing factual allegations regarding the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), CDC Foundation and World Health Organization’s (WHO) extensive relationships and collaborations with Facebook and Zuckerberg.

CHD has made significant progress in the case against Facebook and Zuckerberg since the last court filing — including filing a second amended complaint on Dec.15, 2020, which contained considerable factual amplification of the allegations set forth in our initial filings.

As set forth in the second amended complaint, CHD believes children are being exposed to health and life-threatening injuries by the multi-billion-dollar vaccine industry and that 5G technology, promoted by behemoth internet interests, poses similarly severe risks.

To alert the public to these serious potential dangers, CHD posts links to articles in reputable scientific journals, and publishes opinions expressed by doctors, scientists and others, including CHD Chairman, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. This material is constitutionally protected speech on matters of serious public concern.

As alleged in our second amended complaint, since early 2019, Facebook and Zuckerberg have engaged in a deliberate, systematic effort to degrade and destroy CHD by fraudulently branding our Facebook content as false, directing users to competitors’ sites and preventing Facebook users from donating to CHD.

The complaint specifically identifies 15 instances of defendants falsely labeling CHD content as inaccurate.

The complaint also sets out in detail the reason behind the defendants’ animus against CHD: CHD is a nonprofit organization dedicated to warning the public about the potential risks of certain vaccines and technologies in which the defendants have immense financial interests and investments.

The complaint also outlines how federal actors and agencies encouraged and pressured defendants to engage in their censorship scheme against CHD and jointly participated in that scheme.
**

 

[pknopp]

It's at best vague.

 

[phoenyx]

It's at best vague.

If all you've read is what I've quoted, then yes, it most certainly would be. Continuing from where I left off:
**
The resulting threat to free speech is especially serious because government agents have in essence “deputized” Facebook to do what the government itself is constitutionally forbidden to do.

As the latest complaint details, the defendants were pressured by a prominent Congressman to suppress so-called vaccine “misinformation” — incredibly defined to include content that “casts doubt on the safety or efficacy of vaccines.”

The complaint also alleges that in censoring CHD, the defendants acted with the joint participation of the CDC — a federal agency — and its proxy, the World Health Organization, with which Facebook partnered to create its “fact-checking” protocol.

As a consequence, and as CHD has consistently argued, Facebook and Zuckerberg were not acting merely as private parties, but were functioning as government actors — and thus are subject to the First Amendment’s strictures against government censorship.

As anticipated in this hard-fought litigation, on Dec. 21, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. Facebook apparently seeks special dispensation, not available to other parties, to dismiss CHD’s allegations of government joint action and of Facebook’s responsibility for its “fact-checks” because Facebook claims that it isn’t working with the government or with these same “fact-checkers.”

Facebook also claims that its “fact-checks” aren’t statements of fact at all, but merely protected “opinions,” and that Facebook is merely labelling CHD’s content as “potentially” misleading.

CHD is confident the district court will see through these arguments and that ultimately CHD’s rights will be vindicated. Toward this end, CHD vigorously opposed defendants’ motions to dismiss, filing detailed opposition briefs on Feb. 5. These briefs carefully and thoroughly elaborate the legal basis for CHD’s claims and explain why we should be permitted to proceed through the discovery process and on to trial, rather than be dismissed.
**

More details are in the article.

 

[pknopp]

I read it all. I do not expect the article to be a full legal explanation which is why I said it will be interesting whether or not they can prove this in court.

 

[phoenyx]

I read it all. I do not expect the article to be a full legal explanation which is why I said it will be interesting whether or not they can prove this in court.

Ahhh ok, gotcha.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

They might join Trump's lawsuit.

 

[Skylar]

They might join Trump's lawsuit.

They already lost....using some of the exact same arguments that Trump is using now.


"Judge Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Tuesday granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss against Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) complaint filed against Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and its fact checkers in August 2020.

In a 45-page decision, the judge opined that CHD’s allegations — that Facebook is effectively a “state actor” on behalf of the federal government and engaged in false advertising and racketeering — failed to state legal claims."


Again, Tipsy....there have been 60 or so of these cases. Without exception, they've all failed. Almost all of them failed at the exact same place that the CHD suit did...at the motion to dismiss.

It a laughably awful legal argument presented as viable to the gullible or uninformed who don't know any better.

 

[Skylar]

They might join Trump's lawsuit.

They already lost....using some of the exact same arguments that Trump is using now.


"Judge Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Tuesday granted Facebook’s motion to dismiss against Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) complaint filed against Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg and its fact checkers in August 2020.

In a 45-page decision, the judge opined that CHD’s allegations — that Facebook is effectively a “state actor” on behalf of the federal government and engaged in false advertising and racketeering — failed to state legal claims."


Again, Tipsy....there have been 60 or so of these cases. Without exception, they've all failed. Almost all of them failed at the exact same place that the CHD suit did...at the motion to dismiss.

It a laughably awful legal argument presented as viable to the gullible or uninformed who don't know any better.

Oh, and that was an order of dismissal with prejudice. Meaning it can't be refiled.

There's a reason that Trump's 'legal argument' is being laughed at by legal experts across the country.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

We shall see.

 

[Skylar]

We shall see.

A perfect, unbroken record of failure of every case making the same arguments.....doesn't bode well for Trump's legal actions.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

We shall see.

A perfect, unbroken record of failure of every case making the same arguments.....doesn't bode well for Trump's legal actions.

The same thing happened with hundreds of lawsuits brought against tobacco companies. All dismissed almost immediately. Then an attorney filed a class action lawsuit. Who was that attorney?

 

[Skylar]

We shall see.

A perfect, unbroken record of failure of every case making the same arguments.....doesn't bode well for Trump's legal actions.

The same thing happened with hundreds of lawsuits brought against tobacco companies. All dismissed almost immediately. Then an attorney filed a class action lawsuit. Who was that attorney?

So your working theory is......that your perfect record of failure is proof that you'll succeed?

Good luck with that.

 

[Skylar]

I read it all. I do not expect the article to be a full legal explanation which is why I said it will be interesting whether or not they can prove this in court.

As it turns out, no.

No they couldn't.