Mark Zuckerberg Silenced Me—Now It’s a Battle in the Supreme Court

This week’s headline from Politico’s “Playbook” might have seemed impossible just eight years ago: “Meta sends Trump a friend request.”

Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Meta, remains a controversial figure in conservative circles, particularly following the $300 million in “Zuckerbucks” spent to support left-leaning candidates during the 2020 election.

However, Zuckerberg seems to have recently adopted a different stance.

He described President-elect Trump as “badass,” visited him at Mar-a-Lago, and donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund.

Recently, Meta made headlines by appointing Dana White, a long-time Trump supporter and president of the UFC, to its board of directors.

The biggest surprise came when Meta decided to end its “independent fact-checking program,” effectively removing speech restrictions on Facebook and other platforms such as Instagram and WhatsApp.

Zuckerberg acknowledged that the existing content-moderation policies — which were implemented after criticism during the 2016 presidential election — have “gone too far,” and he emphasized a commitment to “restoring free expression.”

It’s important to note that Meta’s “independent fact-checkers” have neither been independent nor factually accurate. Their removal is a welcome change and should be applauded.

This announcement came shortly after my organization — the nonprofit Children’s Health Defense — requested the US Supreme Court to review our censorship lawsuit against Meta.

If Meta genuinely wants to promote “free expression,” they’re facing significant challenges ahead — and simply relocating workers from California to Texas, which Zuckerberg also pledged to do, isn’t enough.

During the pandemic, Meta not only censored our posts — many involving topics where mainstream “experts” like Dr. Anthony Fauci were proven incorrect — but they also banned us from the platform without prior notice.

Meta first targeted Children’s Health Defense in May 2019, escalating from post removals and restrictions to an outright ban in August 2022 that remains in place.

What were our crimes?

We simply shared information on the risks associated with COVID vaccines, Remdesivir, and ventilation, as well as questioned the benefits of natural immunity and alternative treatments like ivermectin and various protocols.

A transparent discussion around these topics could have saved numerous lives.

We recognized that many of the government’s reassurances — regarding issues like the origins of the pandemic and the most effective treatment methods — were influenced more by political motives than actual “science.”

In 2020, we initiated legal action against Meta in San Francisco federal court. Despite facing some challenges in our case, we have now appealed to the US Supreme Court.

Rest assured, Meta will resist any change. Not only did they ban us, but they also censored our supporters and erased our previous posts.

Meta stifled the “free expression” narrative they claim to uphold.

Indeed, Meta faced coercion from the Biden administration, but that’s only part of the story.

Zuckerberg’s WhatsApp communications revealed that he collaborated with the government and opted for censorship because he had “bigger fish to fry” than safeguarding free speech.

He was aware then that censorship infringed upon free expression rights and recognized that it wouldn’t effectively assist the administration in managing COVID, yet he proceeded anyway.

Though the pandemic may have subsided, discussions about COVID certainly haven’t.

If the Supreme Court hears our case, it could provide accountability for Meta’s role in this man-made crisis and help avert future ones.

 

Like other major platforms, Meta must face consequences when it intentionally aligns its content moderation process with government preferences that suppress free speech protected by the Constitution.

This time, it was about the health and medical freedom issues of Children’s Health Defense. But who will be next?

Ultimately, this conversation transcends any individual or group; it’s about all of us. How many lives were affected or lost because people lacked access to critical information that could have helped them make informed health decisions?

The public benefits more from an abundance of information than a scarcity, especially when it’s based on sound scientific data. Individuals are capable of making their own informed choices.

Last November, voters sent a clear message that they are ready for a change from the current system. Kudos to Mark Zuckerberg for acknowledging the shift in sentiment and articulating the right ideas.

However, the fight for free speech won’t conclude until those banned from his platforms are reinstated.

Mary Holland is the CEO of the nonprofit Children’s Health Defense, founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., aiming to end childhood health epidemics by reducing toxic exposure. Reprinted with permission from RealClear Politics.