We Were Censored By Meta; We’re Taking Them To The Supreme Court

Authored by Mary Holland via RealClearPolitics,

The headline from Politico’s “Playbook” would have been unthinkable eight years ago: “Meta sends Trump a friend request.”

After all, Meta’s founder, Mark Zuckerberg, is a political lightning rod in conservative political circles, especially after the $300 million worth of “Zuckerbucks” spent during the 2020 election to elect like-minded politicians.

Yet lately, Zuckerberg has been singing a much different tune. He referred to President-elect Trump as “badass,” visited him at Mar-a-Lago, and donated one million dollars to his inaugural fund. This week, Meta made news by adding Dana White, a longtime Trump ally and head of the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), to its board of directors.

Then came the real bombshell: Meta ended its so-called “independent fact-checking program,” ostensibly lifting restrictions on speech across Facebook, as well as their other platforms like Instagram and WhatsApp. In doing so, Zuckerberg admitted the current content moderation practices – in place since criticism of his platform during the 2016 presidential election – have “gone too far” and stressed a commitment to “restoring free expression.”

Make no mistake: Meta’s “independent fact-checkers” are neither independent nor fact-based. Their elimination is a positive step and should be encouraged. The announcement came less than 24 hours after the organization I lead – the nonprofit Children’s Health Defense – asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear our censorship lawsuit against Meta.

But if Meta is serious about supporting “free expression,” they have a lot of work to do – and it requires more than moving workers from California to Texas, as Zuckerberg also pledged to do.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Meta not only censored our posts – many having to do with topics that the so-called medical “experts” like Dr. Anthony Fauci were dead wrong about – but outright kicked us off the platform without warning. Meta first took action against CHD in May 2019, from takedowns and restrictions to an outright ban in August 2022 that is still in effect. What were our offenses? Simply publishing data on the risks of COVID vaccines, Remdesivir, and ventilation, as well as having the temerity to raise the benefits of natural immunity and alternative treatment with ivermectin and other protocols.

An unfettered discussion of all these issues would have saved lives. We knew that many of the government’s promises – on items like the pandemic’s origin and the best way to treat symptoms and prevent its spread – were not grounded in “science” as they claimed but political imperatives from the Biden administration.

In 2020, we took them to court, starting in the San Francisco federal court. We suffered some legal setbacks along the way, and this week ended up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Meta will not change its ways without a fight. They not only kicked us off the platform but censored our supporters and erased our past posts. Meta shut down the “free expression” they claim to be championing.

Yes, Meta was coerced by the Biden administration, but there’s more to the story. Zuckerberg’s WhatsApp messages showed that he conspired with the government and chose to censor because he had “bigger fish to fry” than protecting free speech. He knew then that censorship violated the rights of free expression, and he knew then that it wouldn’t help the administration bring COVID under control, but he did it anyway.

The pandemic may be over, but speech about COVID is not. If the Supreme Court takes our case, it can guarantee accountability for Meta’s role in this man-made disaster – and prevent another in the future.  

Meta, like the other mega-platforms, must be held accountable when they knowingly conform their content-moderation process and decisions or cede active, meaningful control to the government’s preference to suppress constitutionally protected speech.

This time it was CHD’s health and medical freedom issues. But who will be next?

Ultimately, this debate is not about any one group or individual but all of us. How many people suffered or lost their lives because they didn’t have access to information that could have helped them make better-informed decisions about their health? The American public is better served with more information rather than less, especially when it is grounded on data-based scientific information. People are smart enough to make up their own minds.

Last November, voters sent an unmistakable message that they want a break from the status quo. Kudos to Mark Zuckerberg for recognizing the prevailing winds and saying the right things. But the free speech fight won’t be over until those who were kicked off his platforms are reinstated.