Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.
The Rally to Reclaim Free Speech will take place in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on March 18 — the same day the Supreme Court justices will hear arguments in a landmark case alleging government officials colluded with tech giants to censor social media content.
The rally, sponsored by Children’s Health Defense (CHD), Brownstone Institute, Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, Informed Consent Action Network and liber-net, was a key topic of discussion on the March 5 episode of CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
Host Michael Kane interviewed two of the rally’s featured speakers, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, a bioethics expert and plaintiff in the Missouri v. Biden case, and Jeffrey A. Tucker, founder and president of the Brownstone Institute.
They discussed how the government and cooperating entities are trying to frame censorship as simply private companies moderating content responsibly. However, the plaintiffs argue that the level of government coercion and entanglement with social media companies violates the First Amendment.
Kheriaty, author of “The New Abnormal: The Rise of the Biomedical Security State,” shared his personal experience with censorship, including being fired from his position at the University of California for challenging its vaccine mandate in federal court and later suing the government over censorship.
Tucker emphasized the importance of the Murthy v. Missouri case, stating that without free expression and free speech, we’ll be left with “totalitarianism,” where every government agency will be “deeply involved in curating our speech and the way we think.”
‘Worst violation of free speech rights in United States history’
Kheriaty provided an account of the Missouri v. Biden case and how it reached the Supreme Court.
Initially focused on COVID-19-related censorship, the discovery process in Missouri v. Biden revealed a much broader scope of government-directed censorship on various topics, including the 2020 election, U.S. foreign policy, gender issues and abortion.
Kheriaty detailed the vast network of government-driven censorship involving numerous government agencies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), academic institutions and social media companies working together to suppress speech on various topics.
“It was actually a very complex network,” Kheriaty said, citing journalist Michael Shellenberger’s term for it — the “Censorship-Industrial Complex.”
With mounting evidence of egregious free speech violations, the plaintiffs petitioned the court for a preliminary injunction, which Kheriaty explained had a “very high legal threshold.”
Nonetheless, a district court judge last July granted the injunction against five federal agencies, including the White House, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FBI, the surgeon general and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
The judge’s ruling stated, “If what plaintiffs allege is true, this is the worst violation of free speech rights in United States history,” Kheriaty recounted.
The government appealed, but a unanimous three-judge panel at the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the injunction. The government appealed again, listing Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy as first among the applicants.
On March 18, the Supreme Court will decide whether to uphold, modify or strike down the injunction after it hears oral arguments on March 18. The final ruling is expected by no later than June.
The outcome of the Supreme Court hearing is also significant to Kennedy v. Biden, a similar censorship case that just won a preliminary injunction from a lower court, Kane said. That injunction was delayed pending the decision in Murthy v. Missouri.
“If we don’t get the injunction, the government’s going to continue to do this censorship until the case is decided,” Kheriaty warned, adding that it could take another two or three years before a final ruling.
Using AI to amplify, suppress viewpoints
Tucker said he was “awestruck” by the sheer scale and sophistication of the “Censorship-Industrial Complex,” describing it as an industrial structure with universities offering programs to train individuals in “disinformation studies” for roles in government-funded NGOs.
He highlighted the role of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, a relatively unknown organization created in 2018 under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Despite its stated purpose of protecting critical infrastructure, the agency pivoted to censorship under the guise of protecting the nation’s “cognitive infrastructure.”
“Our cognitive infrastructure is literally the thoughts inside of your head, which need to be protected from bad ideas,” Kheriaty explained, drawing parallels to Orwellian mind control.
The pair delved into the “Virality Project,” a collaboration between Stanford Internet Observatory, the University of Washington, Graphika and the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab.
Originally tasked by the cybersecurity agency to censor election-related speech, the project later expanded to target COVID-19 content.
Kheriaty revealed how sophisticated artificial intelligence (AI) systems constantly scrape the internet, identifying accounts and ideas gaining traction.
“By tinkering with the subtle forms of censorship that social media companies now use, … [they can] turn the volume down” on dissenting voices, he said, describing techniques like shadow banning and deprioritizing search results.
This level of control, according to Kheriaty, allows for the artificial amplification or suppression of viewpoints, ultimately shaping public discourse and what people think.
‘If we don’t have free expression, free speech — we don’t have anything’
Kheriaty emphasized that the First Amendment protects not just the rights of speakers but also the rights of listeners “to hear divergent opinions on a contested issue.”
Even those without social media accounts are “still [being] impacted by this because the First Amendment is not just the right to say what you want to say,” Kheriaty said.
Tucker warned of the severe consequences if the Supreme Court sides with the government, granting agencies broad powers to control public discourse and narratives.
“If the court decides that this is okay, we’ve got a mission on our hands,” he cautioned. “If we don’t have free expression, free speech — we don’t have anything.”
The pair underscored the rally’s importance in raising public awareness about this unprecedented threat to the First Amendment and free speech rights that underpin American democracy.
“I’m still mystified at the lack of attention this thing is getting from any corporate press … even the conservative media,” Tucker stated, adding, “This is really, really important.”
Kane encouraged Americans to attend the March 18 rally to support the plaintiffs and the crucial cause of protecting free speech from overreaching government censorship.
In addition to Kheriaty and Tucker, the rally will feature CHD President Mary Holland, Dr. Pierre Kory, Dr. Paul Marik and Del Bigtree.
Watch CHD.TV’s ‘Rally to Restore Free Speech’:
The Defender on occasion posts content related to Children’s Health Defense’s nonprofit mission that features Mr. Kennedy’s views on the issues CHD and The Defender regularly cover. In keeping with Federal Election Commission rules, this content does not represent an endorsement of Mr. Kennedy, who is on leave from CHD and is running as an independent for president of the U.S.
