The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) has taken significant legal action by amending its complaint in the ongoing Dressen, et al. v. Flaherty, et al. case. This action challenges the alleged collusion between various federal entities and social media platforms aimed at stifling the voices of individuals claiming injuries from Covid vaccines. The complaint underscores a pervasive campaign spearheaded by agencies including the White House, the CDC, and the Surgeon General’s Office. These bodies are accused of pressuring social media giants to dismiss and discredit as “misinformation” the personal accounts and communications within private online groups of those affected by vaccine side effects.

We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.

Central to the lawsuit are the stories of Brianne Dressen, Shaun Barcavage, Kristi Dobbs, Nikki Holland, Suzanna Newell, and Ernest Ramirez, all of whom reported severe adverse reactions to Covid vaccines—ramifications severe enough, in the tragic case of Mr. Ramirez, to include the vaccine-related death of his son five days post-vaccination. Despite experiencing firsthand the vaccines’ potential risks, these plaintiffs are not opposed to vaccination per se. For instance, Ms. Dressen herself participated in the AstraZeneca vaccine trials before reportedly suffering complications.

These individuals united in their distress, have faced relentless censorship on social media platforms where they sought solidarity and exchanged treatment ideas. Their attempts to share their personal stories and support one another were met with content flags, removals, and the outright shutdown of their support groups—actions directly influenced by what the NCLA terms an unconstitutional campaign by the Biden-Harris Administration.

This legal battle, which aims to secure an injunction against this alleged state-sponsored censorship, asserts that such actions violate the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and association. The ongoing suppression efforts not only undermine the plaintiffs’ rights but also silence an important dialogue about vaccine safety and personal health sovereignty.

Statements from NCLA’s legal team encapsulate the gravity of the case and its broader implications for civil liberties. Litigation Counsel Casey Norman emphasized, “If there is any case that exemplifies why the First Amendment exists—as well as the abominable and Orwellian consequences that take place when the government evades its restraint—it is this one. The time has come for the federal government and its private partners in this cruel censorship scheme to be held to account for the ongoing harm that they have caused our clients, along with so many other Americans across the country who were simply trying to do their part by getting vaccinated—and who were then silenced and made to be pariahs by their own government.”

Echoing this sentiment, Jenin Younes, another Litigation Counsel at NCLA, pointed out the stark contradiction in the government’s narrative versus the plaintiffs’ harsh realities. “The plaintiffs in this case posed a threat to the Biden Administration because their personal experiences conflicted with the government’s heavy-handed approach to Covid-19 vaccination, which was predicated on the false claim that vaccine injuries were virtually nonexistent. The response of the government defendants here—to wield their authority to get social media companies to silence these individuals, who had suffered serious injuries and in the case of Mr. Ramirez lost his own son—should shock the conscience of all Americans. Through this lawsuit, we will hold the Administration and these wayward officials accountable for their flagrantly unconstitutional conduct.”