Federal Lawsuit Challenging Campaign to Suppress Vaccine Adverse Reactions Testimonies
In a significant development, the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) has amended its complaint in the Dressen, et al. v. Flaherty, et al. case. The lawsuit, which targets the alleged censorship of individuals claiming injuries from COVID-19 vaccines, has gained renewed attention due to its implications for civil liberties.
Casey Norman, the NCLA's Litigation Counsel, has emphasised the gravity of the case, stating that the alleged censorship campaign by the Biden-Harris Administration is unconstitutional. The legal battle aims to secure an injunction against this alleged state-sponsored censorship.
At the heart of the lawsuit are the stories of six plaintiffs who reported severe adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines. These individuals, who are not opposed to vaccination, have faced censorship on social media platforms where they sought support and exchanged treatment ideas. Their attempts to share personal stories and support one another were met with content flags, removals, and the shutdown of their support groups.
The amended complaint challenges the alleged collusion between federal entities and social media platforms to stifle the voices of individuals claiming injuries from COVID-19 vaccines. Jenin Younes, another Litigation Counsel at NCLA, has pointed out the stark contradiction between the government's narrative and the plaintiffs' harsh realities.
The complaint highlights a campaign led by the White House, CDC, and Surgeon General's Office, accusing them of pressuring social media giants to dismiss and discredit vaccine injury accounts. Younes stated that the government's conduct in this case "should shock the conscience of all Americans."
Younes further asserted that the plaintiffs in the case posed a threat to the Biden Administration because their personal experiences conflicted with the government's heavy-handed approach to COVID-19 vaccination. One of the plaintiffs, Mr. Ramirez, lost his son five days post-vaccination.
Through this lawsuit, the NCLA aims to hold the Administration and "wayward officials" accountable for their "flagrantly unconstitutional conduct." The legal team has emphasised the need to hold the government and its private partners accountable for the ongoing harm caused to the plaintiffs and many other Americans who have faced censorship on social media platforms.
The ongoing lawsuits target pharmaceutical companies, federal vaccine mandates, and government transparency obligations. While specific lawsuits against social media companies for censoring COVID vaccine injury claims were not detailed in the results, the allegations of censorship and the need for accountability remain a significant part of the broader national debate.
[1] Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Pfizer accusing the company of misleading the public about COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness and suppressing critics. [2] Congressman Paul Gosar reintroduced legislation aiming to remove legal immunities that currently shield vaccine manufacturers from liability, allowing vaccine-injured individuals to pursue lawsuits. [3] The DOJ settled a lawsuit from federal employees and contractors who challenged COVID-19 vaccine mandates, agreeing to expunge vaccine status records and forbid vaccine-based discrimination. [4] There is also litigation against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for failing to meet federal obligations on vaccine safety task forces. [5] Social media platform censorship of COVID vaccine injury claims is a concern raised in discourse, but explicit legal actions addressing that censorship in a First Amendment context are less clearly documented.
- The amended complaint in the Dressen case contends that the Biden-Harris Administration's alleged censorship of individuals claiming injuries from COVID-19 vaccines is unconstitutional, and seeks an injunction against this alleged state-sponsored censorship.
- The heart of the Dressen lawsuit revolves around the stories of six plaintiffs who experienced severe adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines and were censored on social media platforms when they tried to share their personal experiences and support each other.
- Jenin Younes, another Litigation Counsel at NCLA, has pointed out the stark contrast between the government's narrative and the plaintiffs' harsh realities, stating that the government's conduct in this case "should shock the conscience of all Americans."
- The ongoing debate includes concerns about social media platform censorship of COVID vaccine injury claims, but explicit legal actions addressing that censorship in a First Amendment context are less clearly documented, as evidenced by the ongoing lawsuits against social media companies not being detailed in the latest results.
