The facts of the case:
Multiple plaintiffs, including epidemiologists, consumer and human rights advocates, academics, and media operators, claimed that various defendants, including numerous federal agencies and officials, have engaged in censorship, targeting conservative-leaning speech on topics such as the 2020 presidential election, COVID-19 origins, mask and vaccine efficacy, and election integrity.
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) has filed an amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in opposition to the censorship imposed by the Biden Administration by pressuring social media to take down postings critical of Covid vaccination. Set for oral argument on Monday, March 18, this is one of the biggest cases before the Supreme Court this term.
Our national motto is not “In Vaccines We Trust,” or even “In Government We Trust,” AAPS states. “The right to criticize vaccines and government mandates of vaccines should not be abridged as brazenly sought” by the Biden Administration and its allies.
The AAPS amicus brief explains that “vaccine hesitancy” is not a psychological condition, as proponents of censorship pretend, “but rather is justified self-defense against a government that abuses its power by imposing vaccine mandates.”
Citing many historical examples of vaccine failures, this brief points out that the “right to criticize a vaccine is essential especially when government flagrantly ignores safety issues,” as the Biden Administration has concerning Covid vaccines.
“The Surgeon General of Florida, our third largest state, cannot obtain answers from the Biden Administration about safety concerns with Covid vaccines,” states Andrew Schlafly as General Counsel of AAPS. “Instead of censoring issues raised about the Covid vaccines on social media, the Biden Administration officials should be providing answers to the questions raised,” he added.
The AAPS brief is particularly critical of an amicus brief filed by the AMA and other groups supportive of Biden’s vaccination policies. “If adopted, the AMA Amici’s arguments would green-light government censorship of the presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., whose motion to intervene in this case to protect his First Amendment rights was denied by this Court,” AAPS’s brief points out.
“When the federal government tells social media platforms to take action against postings, then our basic free speech rights are gravely endangered,” Mr. Schlafly observes.
This case is captioned Murthy v. Missouri (U.S. Sup. Ct. 23-411). Founded in 1943, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is a pro-patient association of physicians in the practice of private medicine. Its motto means “all for the patient.”
Link to amicus brief PDF: https://aapsonline.org/judicial/aaps-amicus-murthy-v-missouri-2-7-2024.pdf