Ernesto Ramirez Jr. received a Pfizer vaccine for COVID-19 on April 19, 2021, said his father. Five days later, Ernesto was dead.
“My government lied to me. They said it was safe. Now I go home to an empty house,” he said.
Two days after his emotional Senate testimony—on what would have been Ernesto’s 17th birthday—Ramirez posted a picture on Facebook and Twitter of himself beside his son’s casket, with the caption, “My goodbyes to my Baby Boy.”
Facebook flagged the post with a “partly false information” warning label, according to Ramirez.
Twitter deleted the photo altogether and then sent a message to Ramirez: “Make sure you’re sharing reliable information. Visit the COVID-19 Information Center for reliable vaccine info and resources.”
Others say they had similar experiences.
When Brianne Dressen, a participant in the AstraZeneca vaccine trial, experienced vaccine-related injuries and shared an infographic about post-COVID vaccine symptoms in a private Facebook group, the group was disabled by Facebook for violating “Community Standards on misinformation causing physical harm,” according to a lawsuit filed on behalf of Dressen, Ramirez, and several other individuals.
“What happened after these injuries is our clients attempted to talk about their experiences—seek out advice or support about these kinds of injuries on social media platforms—and when they did, they repeatedly found that their posts were being censored, removed, flagged as misinformation,” Norman told The Epoch Times.
“We have a lot more information that’s become public about what the government did,” Norman said, adding that the new filing specifically claims the government and social media companies engaged in the “epitome of conspiracy.”
Social Media and ‘Misinformation’
In its original filing in Dressen, et al. v. Flaherty, et al., the NCLA alleged that various federal agencies and officials worked with social media platforms to censor and label as “misinformation” any speech that contradicted the government’s desired narrative, even when the government acknowledged the information posted was true.It further claimed that Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, GoFundMe, and TikTok violated Dressen, Ramirez, Shaun Barcavage, Kristi Dobbs, Nikki Holland, and Suzanna Newell’s First Amendment rights when the social media companies censored, flagged as misinformation, removed their accounts entirely, or froze and deactivated their accounts when the plaintiffs shared their personal experiences regarding the vaccine.
“Under the First Amendment, the federal government must play no role in policing private speech or picking winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas. Indeed, the Constitution’s text is explicit: ‘Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.’”
The NCLA requested a jury trial, and since then, the case has been proceeding through various stages of the legal process in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
The defendants are represented by Alexander Sverdlov and Pardis Gheibi from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division.
Amended Complaint
According to Norman, since the lawsuit was initially filed, more information regarding the government’s involvement with social media companies has come to light.“[The committee] has published several very lengthy reports that detail emails exchanged, for instance, between Facebook executives and the White House or the Surgeon General’s office and that kind of thing, where there’s a more specific demand for vaccine-related speech to be removed or suppressed,” Norman said.
The government’s actions are ongoing, she said. If her clients don’t speak in “code” on social media, their posts will still be removed or shadowbanned, meaning their visibility is reduced or blocked.
“[The plaintiffs] speak to each other, and they‘ll say, ’Hey, I just posted this. Can you see it?' and it’s completely invisible on all their pages,” Norman said.
She added that when someone posts such a message, the message shows up for them, but no one else can see it.
“They’re seeing a lot of shadow banning now and flags that their posts are misinformation or that they’ve been removed as spam, even when it’s private speech within private support groups on Facebook.”
“[The law] prohibits both government officials and private actors from conspiring to deprive American citizens of their rights or their privileges, immunities, or equal protection under the law on a discriminatory basis,” Norman said.
She said that in the Dressen case, they'll argue that the government is targeting an identifiable class of American citizens—the vaccine-injured—and conspiring to deprive them of their rights.
When pressed on whether there was a legitimate reason for the restrictions, Norman said, “Absolutely nothing illegal” had ever been said.
“Most of the speech that’s been targeted is personal experiences, personal anecdotes—describing their own injuries or injuries of their loved ones or other friends—exchanges of medical reports or advice, or trying to learn from others what treatment has worked or not, or advocacy on behalf of injured individuals.”
Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, GoFundMe, and TikTok did not respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment by the time of publication. X said it’s not a defendant in the case and declined to comment.
As in the Dressen case, plaintiffs in the Missouri case argued that the federal government had violated the First Amendment by “significantly encouraging,” and at times, outright “coercing,” social media companies to remove content from their platforms.
On Sep. 8, 2023 Judge Jeffrey V. Brown granted the Motion to Stay, finding that the resolution of the appeal in the Missouri case “is highly likely to affect the progression of this case” given the “high degree of overlap between the legal issues presented in both cases.”
After the Fifth Circuit ruled against them, the Missouri defendants filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. A writ of certiorari was granted on Oct. 3, 2023 and the case subsequently became Murthy v. Missouri.
The Supreme Court further ruled that the states lacked standing to bring the suit.
Path to the Jury
After filing the amended complaint, Norman said that she expects the defendants to file a motion to dismiss.“I’m not sure what they‘ll say, but they’ll probably say, ‘The pandemic is over. You can’t prove that we’re still doing this. What we did was on behalf of public safety. You can’t question the government’s policies during the pandemic,’ and that kind of thing,” Norman said.
If that argument is unsuccessful, then the case will move to the discovery stage, which Norman said means the government will be “compelled to provide” substantially more information regarding their actions involving social media companies.
Following the discovery stage, Norman said she expects the defendants to file a motion for summary judgment so that both sides would have to present all the evidence they received through the discovery process.
During that process, she said the defendants will likely argue that the evidence presented doesn’t count as a First Amendment violation, and if the judge agrees, he or she can resolve the litigation at that step.
If the judge disagrees and rules in favor of NCLA, however, the case would go to a jury trial.
“We’re currently requesting both injunctive relief, where the court would clearly state that the conduct [NCLA] alleges is unconstitutional and can’t be repeated in the future, and we’re also seeking punitive damages, which would be determined at a jury trial,” Norman said.
She said that if awarded, the punitive damages would send an “especially strong” message that the government can’t continue to engage in “unconstitutional misconduct.”
