PAYBACK Time – RFK Deals DEATH Blow To Biden!

At a Glance

A federal judge ruled that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. can sue the Biden administration over alleged censorship of his charity’s social media posts.
The ruling was made by U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty in Louisiana.
The lawsuit claims the government pressured social media platforms to censor content.
The case could influence future government oversight of social media.

The Court’s Ruling

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. can proceed with his lawsuit against the Biden administration, a federal judge has ruled. Judge Terry Doughty of Louisiana granted Kennedy the right to sue, asserting that the charity Children’s Health Defense was wrongfully censored on social media platforms.

The ruling comes amid heated debates over free speech and the role of government in regulating online content. This case shines a light on the complex dynamic between public health mandates and the protection of free speech.

Implications of the Ruling

The lawsuit claims the Biden administration pressured social media companies like Facebook, X, and YouTube to suppress content they deemed misinformation. Children’s Health Defense has frequently been labeled “anti-vaccine” by critics, though the organization argues it seeks to end childhood health epidemics by eliminating toxic exposure.

‘LIKELY TO SUCCEED’: A judge ruled that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. can sue the Biden-Harris administration over alleged social media censorship of his Children’s Health Defense charity. Why the court believes Kennedy’s lawsuit has merit: https://t.co/9jOxBwHOsX pic.twitter.com/wrpRGMfV1W

— Fox News (@FoxNews) August 25, 2024

U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty referenced the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Murthy v. Missouri in his ruling. In that case, Kennedy’s charity demonstrated direct evidence that government actions led to their censorship.

“The Court finds that Kennedy is likely to succeed on his claim that suppression of content posted was caused by actions of Government Defendants, and there is a substantial risk that he will suffer similar injury in the near future,” Doughty said in his ruling.

Broader Context and Future Actions

The Supreme Court recently dismissed similar claims against the Biden administration, where plaintiffs failed to prove direct harm from government officials. However, in Kennedy’s case, Doughty found there was sufficient evidence to link the government to the charity’s censorship.

The lawsuit’s outcome could lead to significant changes in how social media platforms manage conflicting viewpoints about vaccines and how much influence the government can exercise over such platforms.

The case has been sent back to a lower court for further review regarding the potential injunction and could set a precedent for similar lawsuits in the future.

Public Reaction and Next Steps

Shortly before the ruling, Kennedy suspended his presidential campaign, not without throwing his endorsement behind former President Trump. This case, therefore, is not only significant for its legal implications but also for its political overtones.

While the journey ahead involves more court reviews and public scrutiny, one thing is clear: this landmark decision will fuel a larger conversation about the boundaries of free speech and government oversight in the digital age.