0
0
Missouri v. Biden: The Crucial Free Speech Case
Missouri v. Biden (Murthy v. Missouri) is poised to be a landmark case heard by the Supreme Court on Monday, March 18th. This case, initiated by the Attorneys General of Missouri and Louisiana, challenges the Biden Administration for infringing upon the First Amendment. The core issue at hand involves the federal government’s actions in instructing social media platforms to censor content they deemed unfavorable, as well as the FBI’s involvement in widespread de-platforming.
The government’s actions were a deliberate suppression of truthful information, constituting a significant scale of censorship across various platforms. The upcoming oral arguments scheduled for March 18th are expected to provide insights into this crucial free speech case. The Justices will deliberate and potentially issue a ruling by late June or early July, marking this case as one of high significance, considering the limited number of cases the Supreme Court hears annually.
Plaintiffs and Their Grievances
The plaintiffs in this case consist of three distinguished doctors, a news website, a healthcare activist, and the states of Missouri and Louisiana, all of whom experienced content removal or downgrading by social media platforms:
- Dr. Aaron Kheriaty
- Dr. Martin Kulldorff
- Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya
- Jim Hoft
- Jill Hines
- The State of Missouri
- The State of Louisiana
In a recent development, Dr. Martin Kulldorff revealed his dismissal from Harvard due to his opposition to government-approved COVID protocols. This incident sheds light on the challenges faced by individuals advocating for dissenting views.
Dr. Martin Kulldorff’s Perspective
During a conversation with The Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft, Dr. Kulldorff shared insights on his viewpoints and experiences:
- Dr. Kulldorff endorsed the Swedish approach to the pandemic, emphasizing the success of Sweden’s open policy compared to other European nations.
- He, along with Dr. Bhattacharya and Dr. Sunetra Gupta, authored the Great Barrington Declaration, proposing age-based preventive strategies over broad lockdowns.
- Despite invitations, Harvard doctors declined to engage in debates on his stances.
- He highlighted that Pfizer and Moderna vaccines did not reduce short-term mortality.
- Twitter censored his tweets under US government pressure.
- Historical evidence on natural immunity from past pandemics was disregarded during the COVID era.
- Dr. Kulldorff’s termination from Harvard reinforced the challenges faced by those challenging mainstream narratives.
Dr. Martin Kulldorff’s interview with Jim Hoft offers a glimpse into the complexities of the Missouri v. Biden case and the broader implications for free speech and dissenting viewpoints.
Image/Photo credit: source url
