Exclusive: Jim Breslo has personal interest in case involving FBI 'coercion' of social media sites
By Jim BresloPublished June 25, 2024 at 7:17pm
In the case, Murthy v. Missouri, the Superme Court will analyze the actions of the Biden administration to determine whether their communications to the social media sites rose to the level of coercion rather than simply attempted persuasion.
The administration allegedly asked the sites to take down posts they deemed to contain false information about the pandemic and vaccines and about the legitimacy of the 2020 election.
What makes the case particularly unique is that the communications were not just allegedly from National Institute of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), but from the Department of Justice and FBI.
Missouri argues that a phone call from the FBI trying to persuade you to take down a particular post is inherently coercive.
Most people operate under the assumption that when the FBI asks you to do something, it is a pretty good idea to do it.
I was certainly taught to answer any request by the police with, "Yes, sir."
When I first learned that YouTube took down an episode of my podcast, I was upset with YouTube.
It did not occur to me at the time that the site may have been acting at the direction of the government.
They banned three episodes of my show and almost took down the show entirely.
The content of the episodes was exactly the type the Biden administration was allegedly targeting.
The first was posted in June 2021. My guest was Dr. Joel Hirschhorn, a former University of Wisconsin professor, congressional official and author of the book "Pandemic Blunder," in which he dared to assert that the CDC and NIH bungled their handling of the COVID pandemic.
He came on my show primarily to warn that if you have already had the virus, you should not get vaccinated.
YouTube and the Biden administration apparently did not believe this was a medical opinion Americans should be allowed to hear.
The second episode YouTube took down was in September 2021.
It was an interview with actress Sally Kirkland.
She came on the show to report that she had vertigo soon after getting the vaccine, which caused her to fall and break her wrist.
(My mother also had vertigo for weeks after the getting the vaccine.). She was not expressing a medical opinion, just sharing her personal experience.
However, YouTube, perhaps driven by government pressure, did not allow her to share it with others.
Two weeks later it happened a third time when I dared to interview the attorney representing L.A. firefighters who were opposing a vaccine mandate in court.
He came on to express the view that the vaccine mandate is unconstitutional.
He was allowed to present this in court, but YouTube would not allow it to be presented on its site.
(The U.S. Supreme Court later ruled that similar mandates by the federal government are, in fact, unconstitutional.)
After that I chose to stop posting interviews pertaining to COVID or the vaccine because one more strike and I would have lost my channel.
Mission accomplished for the censors.
Elon Musk discovered the problem when he bought Twitter.
He tweeted, "Every social media company is engaged in heavy censorship, with significant involvement of and, at times, explicit direction of the government."
What is equally concerning is that YouTube was also acting at the behest of the World Health Organization (WHO).
YouTube had an express policy of banning, "Content that contradicts local health authorities' or WHO guidance on certain safe medical practices."
Thus, the WHO, a global health information agency that has been shown to be under heavy influence from the Chinese Communist Party, cannot be contradicted by Americans posting content on America's largest audio and video streaming service.
I have no doubt that the social media companies did far more censoring than even that requested by the administration.
After all, Twitter had about 2,000 content moderators at the time Musk took it over.
YouTube has about 10,000 and Facebook about 15,000.
Their sole job is reading or watching posts and deciding if you should be allowed to see them.
Thus, the Supreme Court's ruling in a second case expected this month is equally important.
The court in Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton will rule on the constitutionality of new laws in Florida and Texas prohibiting social media cites from censoring political speech.
It is time for America to start acting like America again. That means the government not deciding what we can read and see, and the people being able to freely express their opinion about that government.
Thankfully, the Supreme Court appears poised to put us back on course.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@wndnewscenter.org.
SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!
No comments:
Post a Comment