The publisher of The Truth About COVID-19 book is taking legal action against Elizabeth Warren for asking Amazon to bury the book. The lawsuit contends that Warren’s letter is to be held responsible for the action.
- EXPLOSIVE: Here’s what was uncovered in Hunter Biden’s iCloud Hack
- MAJOR PEER REVIEWED STUDY: Moderna Vaccine Increases Myocarditis Risk By 44 Times In Young Adults
- MUST READ: High Level International Bankers Simulate The Collapse Of Global Financial System
- BIG STORY: Wuhan Lab Isolated Monkeypox Strain In 2020
- EXPLOSIVE: Ukraine Biolabs Used Fever Carrying Mosquitoes To Spark Dengue Pandemic In Cuba
The publisher of a book that challenges the prevailing COVID-19 storyline is suing far-left U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) for reportedly infringing on the First Amendment through her insistence that the book be removed off the market.
The Truth About COVID-19: Exposing The Great Reset, Lockdowns, Vaccine Passports, and the New Normal was published on April 29, 2021, by osteopath Dr. Joseph Mercola and Organic Consumers Association director Ronnie Cummins. Warren issued a complaint to Amazon CEO Andy Jassy on September 7 stating that the book “perpetuates dangerous conspiracies about COVID-19 and false and misleading information about vaccines,” despite the fact that it is a bestseller in Amazon’s search rankings.
Reminding Jassy that the retail giant “has removed books trafficking in misinformation from its platform in recent years,” Warren called for an “immediate review of Amazon’s algorithms and, within 14 days, provide both a public report on the extent to which Amazon’s algorithms are directing consumers to books and other products containing COVID-19 misinformation and a plan to modify these algorithms so that they no longer do so.”
According to The Dartmouth, the authors, along with Chelsea Green Publishing, recently launched a lawsuit against Warren, claiming that her requests violate governmental free speech safeguards.
Subscribe to GreatGameIndia
“I do not concede that there is any ‘misinformation’ in the book, but that is irrelevant,” plaintiffs’ attorney Nathan Arnold said. “The content is not the test — if the content is the test, then that eviscerates the First Amendment … I know that the political landscape that we’re all operating in is terribly partisan, but we don’t want unpopular opinions being suppressed by whoever’s in power. It really transcends party politics.”
“Preserving open and free debate is central to our democracy,” Mercola added. “I believe successful treatments for COVID-19 have been suppressed, and there are real conspiracies that have been revealed that are essential to public well-being.”
Warren’s staff is still yet to reply officially.
The lawsuit contends that Warren’s letter, which is what it claims is to be held responsible for Barnes & Noble intermittently removing the eBook edition and Amazon supposedly “covertly demoting, downgrading, or otherwise suppressing” it, is in violation of the 1963 precedent Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, wherein the Supreme Court established that government servants infringe on the First Amendment when they “sen[d] letters to booksellers warning that the sale of certain named books was potentially unlawful.”
Warren’s letter claims that Amazon behaviour of being “either unwilling or unable” to clamp down on publications like Mercola’s is “unethical, unacceptable, and potentially unlawful,” however the senator doesn’t really explain which legislation Amazon is supposed to have breached.
Some contend that such pronouncements from public officials obscure firms’ apparent position as private organizations exerting their respective speech and property rights by essentially transforming companies into government branches when they cooperate. President Joe Biden and his press secretary, Jenn Psaki, have lobbied social media sites to censor stigmatized COVID allegations in the same way.
In July 2021, writer Vivek Ramaswamy argued in The Wall Street Journal that somehow this assertion is based on Supreme Court precedent that the administration “may not induce, encourage, or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish” (Norwood v. Harrison, 1973), and also that state-issued immunity, risks of prosecution or “adverse regulatory action,” “willful participa[tion] in joint activity,” or even just “significant encouragement” can be enough to transform individual censoring judgments into the effective equivalent of government action.