The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) has formally voiced its opposition to the way the Biden administration handled free speech during the pandemic.
This specifically concerns censorship around COVID-related information and collusion with Big Tech, currently being explored in the Murthy v. Missouri Supreme Court case.
AAPS has filed an amicus brief, to support the claim that the current US administration and some of the biggest tech companies unlawfully worked together – either because of pressure on the latter or willingly on their part – to censor Americans.
We obtained a copy of the brief for you here.
This organization gathering medical professionals believes that if the goings on during the pandemic are left without legal consequences, more of the same, only involving different issues, will follow.
And that ranges from the right to express criticism of any other vaccine, to transgenderism and abortion – and even the banning of books.
However, others like the American Medical Association (AMA) in their own written submissions backed the White House and its dealings with Big Tech, effectively saying censorship (even the kind that’s the result of government-private companies collusion) was the right thing to do, given that the goal was to save lives – allegedly at risk because of online “vaccine misinformation.”
This position – stating that the government had a “compelling interest” to do what it has been doing – is also shared by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Physicians, and the American Geriatrics Society.
“It is alarming that any professional organization would argue for censorship as the AMA Amici do in this case,” AAPs said to The Epoch Times.
While at it, the AAPS document not only criticized the Biden White House, but also AMA and their consorts in this “war of amicus briefs” – noting that First Amendment-protected speech extends to criticizing vaccine mandates, and indeed, vaccines.
“Our national motto is not, ‘In Vaccines We Trust,'” the AAPS noted scathingly. It’s not even, “In Government We Trust,” they continued.
And one might add, certainly not, “In Big Tech We Trust.”
AAPS’s amicus therefore urged the court to reject the argument that censorship can be justified because of a “compelling interest” linked to vaccination.
AAPS also went into how vaccines that are not properly tested (such as was the case with the Covid jabs, critics say) tend to cause harm – including the early versions of polio vaccines.
AMA’s success here “would allow the government to censor presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose book ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’ could also be banned by the administration,” AAPS warned.
