Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language Detected language: English [00:00.000 --> 00:02.080] Welcome to the show. [00:02.080 --> 00:05.760] I'm going to do my best to keep this shorter than my last few presentations. [00:05.760 --> 00:10.260] I really just wanted to have a quick word with you about the truly extraordinary occurrence [00:10.260 --> 00:14.600] that a federal court has enjoined the United States government from communicating with [00:14.600 --> 00:16.560] social media platforms. [00:16.560 --> 00:26.920] And the reason the judge took this extraordinary step is music to my ears. [00:26.920 --> 00:38.280] The Dr. Reality Vodcast with Dave Champion. [00:38.280 --> 00:39.280] Let's start with this. [00:39.280 --> 00:43.480] The case to which I'm referring is styled State of Missouri at All versus Joseph R. [00:43.480 --> 00:45.280] Biden Jr. at All. [00:45.280 --> 00:49.040] At All is simply a Latin abbreviation that means and others. [00:49.040 --> 00:52.480] Despite the public name of the case featuring only the name of the state of Missouri, the [00:52.480 --> 00:57.840] The plaintiffs are both the states of Missouri and Louisiana and five private citizens. [00:57.840 --> 01:00.720] Before I get rolling, I want to encourage you to stick with me until the end because [01:00.720 --> 01:03.760] I have a really cool special offer for you. [01:03.760 --> 01:08.160] Missouri v. Biden was brought based on allegations made by the plaintiffs that the United States [01:08.160 --> 01:13.240] government was a major player, if not the major player, in creating the censorship Americans [01:13.240 --> 01:18.800] experienced across social media platforms Facebook, YouTube, and pre-Musk Twitter in [01:19.800 --> 01:27.880] The defendants are 13 federal agencies and a whole lot of people holding executive level [01:27.880 --> 01:30.440] positions within those agencies. [01:30.440 --> 01:34.720] Those agencies are Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Allergy [01:34.720 --> 01:41.520] and Infectious Diseases, CDC, Department of Homeland Security, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure [01:41.520 --> 01:48.680] Security Agency, United States Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department [01:48.680 --> 01:54.000] of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, United [01:54.000 --> 02:00.640] States Department of State, U.S. Department of Treasury, U.S. Election Assistance Commission [02:00.640 --> 02:02.760] and of course, U.S. President Joe Biden. [02:02.760 --> 02:07.440] When I read the court's memorandum part of the order and joining those agencies, I was [02:07.440 --> 02:14.480] happily surprised to see the judge began with this quote, I may disapprove of what you say, [02:14.480 --> 02:18.120] but I would defend to the death your right to say it. [02:18.120 --> 02:23.040] That's a quote from Voltaire that appears in a 1906 book by Evelyn Beatrice Hill entitled [02:23.040 --> 02:25.280] The Friends of Voltaire. [02:25.280 --> 02:30.280] That quote is followed by this opening sentence of the order which reads, quote, this case [02:30.280 --> 02:35.520] is about the free speech clause in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, [02:35.520 --> 02:36.600] close quote. [02:36.600 --> 02:39.060] It doesn't get any clearer than that. [02:39.060 --> 02:44.480] The judge then goes on to give us a statement about the controversy before the court, quote, [02:44.480 --> 02:48.500] Plaintiffs allege that defendants, that's the name of government agencies, through public [02:48.500 --> 02:53.480] pressure campaigns, private meetings and other forms of direct communication regarding what [02:53.480 --> 03:02.360] defendants described as disinformation, misinformation and malinformation have colluded with and [03:02.360 --> 03:10.320] or coerced social media platforms to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints and content [03:10.320 --> 03:12.280] on social media platforms. [03:12.280 --> 03:16.600] Plaintiffs also allege that the suppression constitutes government action and that it [03:16.600 --> 03:20.480] is a violation of the plaintiff's freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the [03:20.480 --> 03:23.120] United States Constitution, close quote. [03:23.120 --> 03:29.760] I'm not going to go through the memorandum point by point because it is 154 pages long. [03:29.760 --> 03:34.200] Instead, I'll cut to the final two paragraphs and then move on to the judgment. [03:34.200 --> 03:39.300] The final two paragraphs of the memorandum read as follows, quote, Although this case [03:39.300 --> 03:43.540] is still relatively young and at this stage the court is only examining it in terms of [03:43.540 --> 03:48.100] the plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits, the evidence produced thus far depicts [03:48.100 --> 03:51.400] an almost dystopian scenario. [03:51.400 --> 03:56.580] During the COVID-19 pandemic, a period perhaps best characterized by widespread doubt and [03:56.580 --> 04:00.540] uncertainty, the United States government seems to have assumed a role similar to the [04:00.540 --> 04:03.540] Orwellian Ministry of Truth. [04:03.540 --> 04:07.780] The plaintiffs have presented substantial evidence in support of their claims that they [04:07.780 --> 04:12.500] were the victims of a far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign. [04:12.500 --> 04:16.360] This court finds that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment free [04:16.360 --> 04:18.580] speech claim against the defendants. [04:18.580 --> 04:23.900] Therefore a preliminary judgment should issue immediately against the defendants, close [04:23.900 --> 04:24.900] quote. [04:24.900 --> 04:30.660] Sadly, the judge denied the plaintiff's request to have the case certified as class action. [04:30.660 --> 04:31.900] Well that would have been epic. [04:31.900 --> 04:35.100] I do understand why the judge didn't go there. [04:35.140 --> 04:39.700] In the injunction order, the court enjoins the following agencies, Department of Health [04:39.700 --> 04:47.020] and Human Services, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the CDC, [04:47.020 --> 04:52.300] Federal Bureau of Investigation, key members of the Executive Office of the President of [04:52.300 --> 04:58.480] the United States, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, United States Department [04:58.480 --> 05:02.740] of Homeland Security, United States Department of State. [05:02.740 --> 05:06.900] After every agency and individual was listed, the order enjoins the named parties from [05:06.900 --> 05:08.180] the following. [05:08.180 --> 05:13.660] One, meeting with social media companies for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, [05:13.660 --> 05:19.020] or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing [05:19.020 --> 05:22.620] protected free speech posted on social media platforms. [05:22.620 --> 05:27.620] Two, specifically flagging content on posts on social media platforms and or forwarding [05:27.620 --> 05:32.040] such social media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner for [05:32.140 --> 05:36.720] removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech. [05:36.720 --> 05:41.440] Three, urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner social media companies [05:41.440 --> 05:46.080] to change their guidelines for removing, deleting, suppressing, or reducing content [05:46.080 --> 05:48.040] containing protected free speech. [05:48.040 --> 05:52.400] Four, emailing, calling, sending letters, texting, or engaging in any communication [05:52.400 --> 05:57.360] of any kind with social media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any [05:57.360 --> 06:01.480] manner for the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected [06:01.480 --> 06:08.020] free speech. Five, collaborating, coordinating, partnering, switchboarding, and or jointly [06:08.020 --> 06:13.920] working with the Election Integrity Partnership, the Virality Project, the Stanford Internet [06:13.920 --> 06:19.900] Observatory, or any like project or group for the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, [06:19.900 --> 06:24.080] or inducing any manner, removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content posted [06:24.080 --> 06:30.420] with social media companies containing protected free speech. Six, threatening, pressuring, [06:30.420 --> 06:35.060] or coercing social media companies in any manner to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce [06:35.060 --> 06:40.420] posted content of postings containing protected free speech. Seven, taking any actions such [06:40.420 --> 06:44.460] as urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner social media companies to remove, [06:44.460 --> 06:48.300] delete, suppress, or reduce posted content protected by the free speech clause of the [06:48.300 --> 06:53.420] First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Eight, following up with social media companies [06:53.420 --> 06:57.460] to determine whether the social media companies removed, deleted, suppressed, or reduced previous [06:57.460 --> 07:02.620] social media postings containing protected free speech. Nine, requesting content reports [07:02.620 --> 07:06.300] from social media companies detailing actions taken to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce [07:06.300 --> 07:11.680] content containing protected free speech. And ten, notifying social media companies [07:11.680 --> 07:17.740] to be on the lookout for postings containing protected free speech. The injunction continues [07:17.740 --> 07:18.740] with, [07:18.740 --> 07:22.020] This preliminary injunction precludes said named defendants, their agents, officers, [07:22.020 --> 07:26.140] employees, contractors, and all acting in concert with them from aforementioned conduct. [07:26.140 --> 07:30.620] This preliminary injunction also precludes said named defendants, their agents, officers, [07:30.620 --> 07:34.740] and employees, and contractors from acting in concert with any others who are engaged [07:34.740 --> 07:40.500] in said conduct. The court then detailed its exclusions from the order of following communications [07:40.500 --> 07:46.940] with social media companies are not enjoined by the court. One, informing social media [07:46.940 --> 07:52.180] companies of postings involving criminal activity or criminal conspiracies. Two, contacting [07:52.180 --> 07:56.100] and or notifying social media companies of national security threats, extortion, or other [07:56.100 --> 08:01.180] threats posted on the platform. Three, contacting and or notifying social media companies about [08:01.180 --> 08:06.380] criminal efforts to suppress voting to provide illegal campaign contributions or cyber attacks [08:06.380 --> 08:12.300] against election infrastructure or foreign attempts to influence elections. Four, informing [08:12.300 --> 08:16.820] social media companies of threats that threaten the public safety or security of the United [08:17.820 --> 08:22.740] States. Five, exercising permissible government speech promoting the government's policies [08:22.740 --> 08:28.220] or views on matters of public concern. Six, informing social media companies of postings [08:28.220 --> 08:35.220] intended to mislead voters about voting requirements and procedures. Seven, informing or communicating [08:35.220 --> 08:39.780] with social media companies in an effort to defeat, prevent, or mitigate malicious cyber [08:39.780 --> 08:43.700] activity. Eight, communicating with social media companies about deleting, removing, [08:43.700 --> 08:47.840] suppressing, or reducing posts on social media platforms that are not protected free [08:47.840 --> 08:52.980] speech by the free speech clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution. The most interesting [08:52.980 --> 08:56.860] part of the court's order may be the position in which it puts the government concerning [08:56.860 --> 09:03.860] an appeal. And of course, the government has appealed. Why would the government appeal? [09:03.900 --> 09:08.940] I can see only one reason. That's because the government wants to engage in the conduct [09:08.940 --> 09:14.780] from which it has been enjoined. There is literally no other reason to appeal. I've [09:14.780 --> 09:20.820] often said criminal laws are invisible to me. As an example, a statute that criminalizes [09:20.820 --> 09:25.780] rape is invisible to me because I have no desire to rape anyone. Likewise, if the named [09:25.780 --> 09:29.780] government agencies and individuals do not intend to communicate with social media companies [09:29.780 --> 09:33.180] concerning the removal of speech protected by the First Amendment, the injunction would [09:33.180 --> 09:38.100] be invisible to them. The fact that the government is appealing telegraphs that the government [09:38.100 --> 09:44.260] wants the prohibition against violating our free speech lifted so it can continue violating [09:44.260 --> 09:49.580] our free speech. The government's first step was to file a motion for reconsideration with [09:49.580 --> 09:55.720] Judge Doty, asking him to withdraw the injunction. After Doty rejected the government's request, [09:55.720 --> 09:59.420] on June 10th the government filed an appeal with the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth is one of [09:59.420 --> 10:02.720] the more conservative circuits, so it's more likely to uphold the injunction than with [10:02.720 --> 10:06.840] some other circuits. When we consider the arguments the government is making to the [10:06.840 --> 10:12.600] Fifth, I don't think they've done themselves any favors. Let me give you a few examples. [10:12.600 --> 10:17.320] The government asserts that the injunction may have a chilling effect on law enforcement [10:17.320 --> 10:26.440] activity to protect national security interests. But what did we just read a moment ago? We [10:26.440 --> 10:30.640] read that Judge Doty's order specifically permits the government to communicate with [10:30.640 --> 10:35.240] social media companies about threats to national security. I doubt the judges at the Fifth [10:35.240 --> 10:40.000] are going to be impressed with the government's arguments. The government also asserts that the [10:40.000 --> 10:45.080] order has the potential to disrupt communications concerning the security of federal elections, [10:45.080 --> 10:52.840] warning that it creates legal uncertainty that could lead to disastrous delays in responding to [10:52.840 --> 10:58.880] misinformation. But again, Judge Doty's order contains two provisions clarifying the disorders [10:58.880 --> 11:02.720] do not apply to the government communicating with social media companies concerning threats [11:02.720 --> 11:09.840] to U.S. elections. Again, I doubt the Fifth is going to be impressed. I almost laughed out loud [11:09.840 --> 11:16.000] when I read the government's claim that the injunction will hamper the fight against fentanyl. [11:16.000 --> 11:23.640] Really? The very first item that Doty makes clear does not fall under his order is, quote, [11:23.640 --> 11:29.600] informing social media companies of postings involving criminal activity or criminal conspiracies, [11:29.600 --> 11:35.200] close quote. In its appeal, the government characterizes the language of the injunction [11:35.200 --> 11:43.040] as vague. Hmm, really? I thought it was impeccably clear. The only way I can see the government's [11:43.040 --> 11:49.840] vagueness argument as meaningful is if the government is saying it's uncertain what constitutes [11:49.840 --> 11:58.600] First Amendment protected speech. But here's the thing. After 232 years of the U.S. Constitution [11:58.600 --> 12:02.760] being in effect and hundreds of presidential court decisions concerning the right of free speech, [12:02.760 --> 12:10.840] if the government is still uncertain what speech is protected, that confirms how badly this injunction [12:10.840 --> 12:15.840] is needed. I'd like to think we'll hear that logic from the Fifth in its response to the government. [12:15.840 --> 12:20.880] The government then makes the argument that under the injunction, how can officials who post to [12:20.880 --> 12:26.600] social media on behalf of an agency know what is permissible or impermissible to say as a social [12:26.600 --> 12:34.880] media user? Okay. I admit I'm not a DOJ attorney, so maybe I'm not smart enough to grasp the [12:34.880 --> 12:41.520] government's point here, but I see the boundary as being pretty simple. In its relevant part, [12:41.520 --> 12:48.400] the injunction prohibits, quote, emailing, calling, sending letters, texting, or engaging in any [12:48.400 --> 12:54.560] communication of any kind with social media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or [12:54.560 --> 12:58.640] inducing in any manner for removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing [12:58.640 --> 13:05.360] protected free speech. Close quote. I emphasized, or engaging in any communication of any kind with [13:05.360 --> 13:10.560] social media companies, to make the point that as long as the government official who is posting [13:10.560 --> 13:16.560] doesn't tag anyone who works for the social media company or conspire with somebody else to tag an [13:16.560 --> 13:22.000] employee at the company, there is no violation of the injunction. Tagging a person who works for [13:22.000 --> 13:26.800] the platform would obviously be a form of communicating with a company employee, which is [13:26.800 --> 13:32.400] prohibited. The government has filed its appeal on an emergency basis. Of course, the Fifth is [13:32.400 --> 13:37.600] under no obligation to hear it on an emergency basis. If it does hear the appeal on an emergency [13:37.600 --> 13:44.000] basis, the panel will issue a decision within days or set a very near-term date for oral arguments. [13:44.000 --> 13:49.040] If the panel declines to hear the appeal on an emergency basis, then we likely won't hear anything [13:49.040 --> 13:55.280] substantive from the Fifth for weeks. If you value this sort of meaningful fact-based presentation, [13:55.280 --> 14:01.120] do us both a favor and go to drreality.news and pick up a copy of Income Tax Shattering the Miss [14:01.120 --> 14:09.280] and or Body Science. I say do us both a favor because when you support my work, you get more [14:09.280 --> 14:16.160] than you give. Let me explain that. I want your life to be the best it can be. Income Tax Shattering [14:16.160 --> 14:22.320] the Miss and Body Science will help achieve that, if you let them. We live in a time when it seems [14:22.320 --> 14:29.840] almost everything we see or hear is some sort of scam. I find that disturbing, to say the least, [14:29.840 --> 14:35.040] but it is the world we live in. Accordingly, rather than me telling you how wonderful and [14:35.040 --> 14:40.240] life-changing Income Tax Shattering the Miss and Body Science are, I prefer you hear it from readers. [14:40.240 --> 14:46.240] But before I do, I want to let you know that 100 percent of Body Science reviews have been five [14:46.240 --> 14:51.600] stars. And Income Tax Shattering the Miss has gotten overwhelmingly five-star reviews in the [14:51.600 --> 14:58.160] 13 years since its release, with just a few four-and-a-half star reviews. Interestingly, [14:58.160 --> 15:03.120] the several people who gave it a four-and-a-half stars said it was because the material is so [15:03.120 --> 15:07.120] thorough they had to read a few parts a second time to retain the information. [15:07.680 --> 15:11.600] What you're about to hear are random comments about Income Tax Shattering the Miss and Body [15:11.600 --> 15:16.720] Science made on various social media sites. Here's one about Income Tax Shattering the Miss. [15:17.280 --> 15:22.480] Thank you for the amazing book, Income Tax Shattering the Miss. Amazing read and I'd [15:22.480 --> 15:29.840] highly recommend it to everyone who would like to know the truth. I hit chapter five, mind-blowing. [15:30.480 --> 15:35.840] Remember a moment ago I said you're receiving more than you're giving? Peter said, [15:36.480 --> 15:40.400] I've told many people who have complained about the cost that Income Tax Shattering the Miss [15:40.400 --> 15:46.400] is worth 10 times what you are asking, as it is the book that will free them from the self-imposed [15:46.400 --> 15:54.400] slavery of income tax. Donnie says, awesome book. It will blow your mind and piss you off [15:54.400 --> 16:01.200] at the same time. Enjoy. Regarding Body Science, Mike says, I lent another one to a friend. [16:01.280 --> 16:06.960] He sent me this text on Thursday, quote, I've read well over 200 books on diet, nutrition, [16:06.960 --> 16:13.440] exercise, et cetera, and nothing compares to what I just read. Hunter says, when Champion breaks down [16:13.440 --> 16:18.560] complex physiological concepts to more readily understandable themes, he not only obliterates [16:18.560 --> 16:23.360] mainstream medical and nutritional industry dogma, but provides a much deeper understanding [16:23.360 --> 16:29.360] of what our bodies need and want in order to remain healthy. Body Science exemplifies what [16:29.360 --> 16:34.800] is possible when someone cares about the truth and reaches out to help his fellow man. Help his [16:34.800 --> 16:42.160] fellow man. In my book, that's what it's all about. But of course, time has value. It's the one thing [16:42.160 --> 16:47.280] of which we can never get more. For me to continue providing these kinds of presentations, I need to [16:47.280 --> 16:52.720] at least break even on the time I put into it. You can help with that while at the same time improving [16:52.720 --> 16:58.000] your own world by purchasing Income Tax Shattering the Miss and Body Science. It just so happens I'm [16:58.000 --> 17:05.040] running a special right now on both. Here's how it works. For a limited time, you can save 15% buying [17:05.040 --> 17:12.320] Income Tax Shattering the Miss alone, or you can get 15% off Income Tax Shattering the Miss and free [17:12.320 --> 17:18.240] shipping on your order by purchasing Income Tax Shattering the Miss and Body Science together. [17:18.240 --> 17:23.680] To get 15% off Income Tax Shattering the Miss when purchasing it alone, use the coupon code [17:23.760 --> 17:29.440] OWNIT. I'll put the link and the code down in the notes. To get 15% off Income Tax Shattering the [17:29.440 --> 17:35.600] Miss and free shipping on your order by purchasing the bundle containing Body Science and Income Tax [17:35.600 --> 17:40.880] Shattering the Miss, use the coupon code FREEBEE. I'll put the link to that bundle in the notes [17:40.880 --> 17:46.160] along with the code. Thank you for your support. Please share this vodcast everywhere. Thanks for [17:46.160 --> 17:54.160] being here. Take care.