Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Lawsuit Filed Against US Government for Intimidation of Big Tech, Censorship
In The Hill and on the YouTube channel “Rising,” Kim Iversen has reported the facts surrounding a new lawsuit against the government and the current Administration.
The lawsuit involves the US governmental intimidation of Big Tech to censor opposition viewpoints. The government officials have told Big Tech to censor individuals, the opinions and/or facts held by oppositional party members.
Recently, Eric Schmidt announced how a federal court is allowing a lawsuit, filed back in May 2022, to investigate if the Biden Administration has coerced Big Tech and the social media community, which is basically owned by Big Tech, into complying with the need of the Democrat’s leader to suppress ideas unfavorable to this Administration.
Among issues Big Tech has squashed: any mention of the theory — supported by science — that the Wuhan flu was lab-created; that alternate COV remedies other than the “vaccines,” remdesivir and monoclonal antibodies have successfully clobbered the COVID infection in many foreign nations, and more.
Iversen also mentions how Alex Berenson took Twitter to court and had his banned Twitter status restored, although details perhaps are now buried from the public under a nondisclosure agreement.
Legal opinion is brought forward that this might be a difficult case to win, as traditionally courts have ruled that if citizens do not like an administration’s heavy-handedness in certain matters, the citizenry should vote such elected officials out.
But it is quite difficult for citizens to vote people out when the full press mesmerizing of the public is ongoing and continually secured against us through the media and social media’s heavy hold over the public’s perceptions?
It is interesting to note that recently in France, the vaccine passport was defeated. One reason for this: France banned long ago any advertisements by pharmaceutical companies on French TV. Due to how the French news stations report on vax injuries and deaths, as French news stations are not receiving the gazillions of dollars annually from Big Pharma that American news outlets receive, the public has been able to rally against the insidious encroachment of a CCP-style vax and social credit-based society.
The report is here: Biden and Fauci SUED For Coercing Big Tech To CENSOR Dissent.
What no one at The Hill bothered to mention is that according to rules of order, the Jan 6th investigative committee’s hearings in Congress were illegal. This entire spectacle was a handshake between Big Media, Big Tech, and Congress. For whatever reason, there has not been – as there should have been – at least one major lawsuit or several lawsuits – against a hearing in which public opinion is “adjusted” by continuous “hearings” devised along the lines where “witnesses” were not at all sworn in under oath, and perhaps 90% of the hearing involved opinions and hearsay!
Emails uncovered show that before her testimony, Amber Heard considered her subpoena to appear as BS. And indeed, almost everything she stated as a matter of hearing testimony was indeed BS. Yet this entire foohbah was televised and has established a principle that if one party has the power, they can establish that an event did indeed happen as the hearing attempted to prove did happen, even though that may not be the reality. The corollary to this legitimizing January 6th as an insurrection means that those arrested as “insurrectionists” can now rot in prison. (Plus, what would be the chances of any getting a fair hearing inside Washington DC?)
At the same time as this hearing on January 6th, Dr. Simone Gold was sentenced to actual prison time for her admitting she had entered the US Capitol Building on that date.
Published in Law
Did the government have to intimidate big tech or is big tech a more-than-willing accomplice?
Docket:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63290154/missouri-v-biden/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc
That is a great question, and one I entertain.
No one forced Zuckerberg to use a charity foundation to donate hundreds of thousands of dollars, and in some cases millions, to various states across the USA for the purpose of setting up voting official educational facilities. The monies were offered in the build up to the Nov 2020 Presidential election.
Some of the activities at such a center in Wisconsin raise dozens of questions about the bias that was inadvertently or deliberately created by the way the center ran its “instructional programs.”
I don’t know the answer. I just note that lots of the upper reaches of the big tech companies are occupied by those who were in the upper reaches of the Justice Dept. And retired political leaders of European countries. (Not unlike the EU.)
Maybe some in Silicon Valley don’t like being pushed around even for Commie/Leftist causes.
Thanks for bringing that case to our attention. I don’t know anything about the three presenters on the program, but I was favorably impressed.
There is probably a moment of clarity when a person who thought he was working with the mob realizes he is working for the mob.
“It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.” –Thomas Paine