Exclusive--Dr. Aaron Kheriaty et al versus Biden et al--Preliminary Injunction Halts Government from Manipulating Social Media
Historic Case of Spoils US Government Agency Propaganda Machine
By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
This breaking interview with Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, plaintiff in the historic case against President Joe Biden and the US Government gives a critical update. To set the stage, Kheriaty believes for several years now many US government agencies have been in the business of using their influence with social media directly and through academic IT/AI contractors to shape narratives on the internet and social media. This included the fabrication of Russian influence in Trump’s election in 2016, Hunter Biden’s laptop, Ukraine War, COVID-19 false narrative, vaccine and transgender ideologies. Kheriaty believes governments all over the world are creating a “matrix” along the lines outlined by journalist Michael Shellenberger.
Initial discovery has been sufficiently damaging, that a federal judge has issued preliminary injunction to halt activities of federal agencies and their designees probably including Stanford Internet Observatory Virality Project, University of Washington Center for an Informed Public, Graphika, to name just a few.
New Civil Liberties Alliance issued this report on July 5, 2023.
Washington, DC (July 5, 2023) – Judge Terry A. Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana has granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting several federal agencies and specific White House officials from pressuring or coordinating with social media companies to suppress constitutionally-protected speech. The New Civil Liberties Alliance, a nonpartisan nonprofit civil liberties group, celebrates this major victory for its clients Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff and Aaron Kheriaty and Jill Hines in the case of Missouri, et al. v. Biden, et al.
Three of NCLA’s clients are distinguished scientists who, because of state action, were blacklisted, shadow-banned, de-boosted, throttled, and censored on social media for merely articulating views opposed to government-approved views on Covid-19 restrictions and regulations. Jill Hines was a dissenter from mandatory vaccines and lockdowns who also had her media posts throttled. Their ordeal was part of a lawless and expansive campaign by federal officials across at least eleven agencies and sub-agencies who employed illicit tactics—including coercion, collusion and coordination—on social media companies to suppress the airing of disfavored perspectives. The agencies directed such companies to censor viewpoints that conflicted with federal government messaging on topics ranging from Covid-19 to elections.
Judge Doughty’s new order applies to agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services, State Department, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, FBI and officials like White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and Counsel to the President Stuart Delery. They are prohibited from threatening, pressuring, or coercing social media companies to suppress or remove posted content featuring protected speech.
In his timely July 4 memorandum ruling on a request for a preliminary injunction, Judge Doughty wrote, “Although this case is still relatively young, and at this stage the Court is only examining it in terms of Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, the evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and uncertainty, the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’”
In the measured order of injunction Judge Doughty did not prohibit the traditional government functions of informing media, social or otherwise, of criminal activity, or national security threats on their platforms, including illegal foreign efforts to suppress voting. In short, criminality can be challenged, not dissent.
Kheriaty expects the Biden administration attorneys to stay the injunction in appellate court in order to keep the government’s social media and censorship machine going as the case grinds on for years to come. A few minutes into July 10, 2023, he was proven correct with this storyline.
This interview is riveting and no doubt part of US history unfolding on the center stage where our rights to free speech (and thought) are literally on trial.
Subscribe as a paying or founder member so we can continue to bring you the truth.
Courageous Discourse™ with Dr. Peter McCullough & John Leake is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.