Missouri v. Biden: A Censorship Primer

Why is the Biden Administration in the Business of Censorship, and what is the RFK, Jr. Connection?

By Deb Sur, The Kennedy Beacon

On January 23, 2021, days after President Joe Biden took office, the now former Digital Director for the Covid-19 Response Team, Clarke Humphrey, sent Twitter an email asking them to “flag” one of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s anti-vaccine tweets and have it “removed ASAP.” She also sent a copy of the same email to the former Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Digital Strategy, Robert Flaherty, requesting that he “keep an eye out for tweets that fall in this same genre.” 

It was just one instance of government pressure on social media platforms. There have been many others.

Facebook, along with other companies, was asked to submit a detailed report about its policy on censorship, explaining what kind of content it does or does not censor. In its report, among other things, Facebook included a list of items that do not violate its policies but that might lead to vaccine hesitancy, including encouraging others not to be vaccinated, misrepresenting vaccine data, the posting of shocking vaccine anecdotes, showing mistrust and concern about individuals and institutions who favor vaccines, and merely discussing one’s choice to get vaccinated or not. As it turns out, neither Kennedy’s nonprofit activist group Children’s Health Defense nor their online content had violated Facebook’s policies. Nonetheless, both Facebook and Instagram removed CHD from their platforms for allegedly violating their internal guidelines and propagating “misinformation.” 

The latest conflict over free speech in America has not only been playing out quietly within government and big tech offices. It’s now a high-profile federal lawsuit, Missouri v. Biden, that reflects Kennedy’s own struggles—and could impact them going forward. That lawsuit is further polarizing the country and putting the First Amendment to one of its most withering tests.

Missouri v. Biden: Key Dates

On July 10, 2023, the federal government defendants in the U.S. federal court case, Missouri v. Biden, requested a stay of the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Terry A. Doughty on July 4 against several administration officials and agencies under President Joe Biden that had asked for the removal or blocking of social media posts that are either illegal or threaten national security. 

On July 14, the Fifth Circuit granted a temporary administrative stay on the injunction in the Western District Court of Louisiana Monroe Division, and expedited the appeal to the next available “Oral Argument Calendar,” or “court date.”

A few days later, on July 17, 2023, the New Civil Liberties Alliance, along with others, filed a brief urging the Fifth Circuit to let Judge Doughty’s injunction stand in order to protect the right of Americans to freedom of speech on social media platforms. 

Initially filed in Missouri and Louisiana by former Missouri attorney general, Senator Eric Schmitt, and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, respectively, the lawsuit alleges that the Biden administration contacted social media platforms to convince them to remove ‘misinformation’ in gross violation of the principle of free speech. 

In a 155-page document written by the court, Doughty predicts a likely victory for free speech. A key statement in it reads: “The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition. Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed. It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature. This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech. American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country.”

So, what role has RFK Jr. played in this issue?

On July 5, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an intent to appeal in the Fifth Circuit. The appeal sought a stay of the injunction that, in the view of the DOJ, would prevent it from working with social media platforms to protect American democracy ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

Presidential candidate Kennedy has been one of the high-profile voices flagged, suppressed, and censored. For instance, the Virality Project, a coalition of research entities seeking to mitigate the impact of false and misleading narratives related to COVID-19 vaccines, had flagged Kennedy as one of the key spreaders of ‘misinformation,’ along with Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and others. 

Kennedy has long been a proponent of free speech. He has spoken out against being censored and removed from social media platforms. In a recent interview with The New Yorker’s David Remnick, he expressed the desire to build a country where censorship does not exist. He emphasized that he’d be happy to bring people who have opposing values “to his tent” and have a discussion. 

“If I can get them to support a vision of the idealistic America that I believe in,” he said, “the same America that my father and my uncle believed in—an America without censorship, an America that fights for our Constitution, an America that is a moral authority around the world, that projects economic power around the globe rather than military violence—if I can get people to support that, I don’t care if they’re Republican or independent, or what they are.”

According to the Missouri v. Biden court document, Kennedy was one of the many people targeted by the administration in its social media witch hunt to suppress the spread of misinformation. 

The press, led by The New York Times, delights in labeling Kennedy a “fringe” candidate and an anti-vaxxer. But Kennedy is a fighter.

As we track the rising debate about free speech, misinformation, and censorship, check back with us here at The Kennedy Beacon for updates on the Missouri v. Biden case.