Welcome to Kibbe on Liberty. Jay, thanks for squeezing us in. It's been a very busy day.

It's so good to talk with you, Matt. It feels like I'm back home in a way.

Yeah, you've done this before, and we've been having conversations about both the implications of lockdowns and vaccine mandates. But perhaps to me, the linchpin of this entire argument is whether or not you still have the right as a dissident voice in America to question government policy, to question the government narrative. And you spent the morning in the Supreme Court. This was your first time?

First time in the Supreme Court. First time as a plaintiff. Probably the last time, I don't know.

You're like, Hopefully the last time.

Hopefully the last time. Yeah.

And you are a plaintiff in Murphy v. Missouri. Explain to people what that is and why you're a plaintiff.

Sure. So The case started its life as Missouri versus Biden. It was brought by the Missouri and Louisiana Attorney General's Office against the Biden administration, with the allegation that the Biden administration was coercing social media companies to censor speech at scale. We had some very favorable rulings in the lower courts, allowed us to depose people like Tony Fauci, get a tremendous amount of emails from the White House and the CDC, the Surgeon General's office, the FBI, you name it. And what we found was a very distressing pattern of the government, essentially pestering, coercing, winding their way into the workings of the social media companies, in effect, telling the government the government telling the social media companies who and what to censor. And always with an implied threat of, if you don't listen to us, well, that's a nice company. You got there, you'd be really sad if something would happen to it. In fact, one of the Very Don Corleone. Al Capone is what I was thinking of, but I'll take it. But yeah, it's actually one of the lower court, the appeals court, that's exactly the analogy they used. It's this implied threat. The lower courts put in a injunction that essentially told the Biden administration, including the CDC, all of these agencies, that they were not allowed to go and tell social media companies who and what to censor for legal speech.

So that was the basic injunction that the Supreme Court was considering. They were deciding whether that injunction should hold. It's an extraordinary thing the Supreme Court grants a cert to this primary injunction. Win or lose, it'll go back down to the lower court, and we'll still get our day in court.

You sat through these arguments. You've probably never sat through one of these proceedings before. What were the big arguments and how did the justices receive those arguments?

Well, first, walking into the Supreme Court, I got tingles, Matt, because it's one of these things. I'm an immigrant kid. The idea that I'm at the center of a major Supreme Court case is amazing to me.

It's an overwhelming building.

It absolutely is. They set themselves up so all the nine justices are up there in front of you, up on high. The tenor of the questions were on several different issues. Several different issues. One was standing. Standing means that, do I actually have a legal right to sue? It's not just me that's suing, it's the Missouri and Louisiana attorney general's offices that are suing. It's Aaron Carriotti, who's a fantastic biophthesist and psychiatrist who spoke very eloquently against COVID vaccine mandates during the pandemic and paid a huge price for it, got censored. Martin Kuhldorff, Harvard University, then of Harvard University, got censored. He's a major league statistician and with extensive experience on vaccine safety, got censored.

We should say who just lost his job for his principled stand.

That's right, at Harvard. So you have a Jill Hines, who's a Louisiana health freedom activist, who's very, very sweet, very bright, has spoken up very eloquently for vaccine-injured patients, again, throughout the pandemic. And all of which is like a fantastic track. You can see in the email records, a track record of people in the government saying, censor these kinds of ideas that the four or five of us were saying during the pandemic. And what it did is essentially deprive the American people's right to hear. So the argument in front of the Supreme Court that the Biden administration made was that, well, you haven't shown directly an email that says, Sensor Jay. But they said, Sensor Jay is the kinds of things Jay is saying. Here are the themes to censor. Here are the people. Really, we are not just five people. We are five representatives of the entire American population who was censored at scale.

They were combing through emails.

Yeah. That argument for standing, the Biden administration lost those arguments against standing in the lower courts, and I hope the Supreme Court understands why they lost. If If you can't sue the government over this censorship effort because no one individual has standing, then there's no First Amendment. There's no way to enforce the First Amendment. Okay, the next argument was that the government needs to have the right to censor. There's a very striking... One of the justices made a very striking hypothetical case. Well, what if there's a social media fad of kids jumping off of buildings of increasingly higher heights? And of course, It's terrible. Kids shouldn't be jumping off buildings. Shouldn't the government have the right to tell, force social media companies to not allow that to be shown? Now, of course, the thing is, the government absolutely has the bully pulpit. The President or the CDC or whoever can say, It's really dumb to jump off buildings. Don't jump off buildings. It's really dumb to show people jumping off buildings. If it makes other people jump off buildings. Don't do that. They absolutely have the bully the pulpit right to say that. They can go to social media companies and say, Government scientists have found that putting videos of jumping off buildings makes more people want to jump off buildings.

I don't know. Or better, they can go tell the public at large, Parents, tell your kids not to jump off buildings. It's really dumb for them to do that. You'd be really smart to not have them do that. They have a tremendous number of tools. But censorship of- It's possible they don't even have to tell parents that. Every parent looks to the government for exactly how to raise their kids. And that, did you not know that?

That's the new math.

Yeah. But the point is that they have a wide array of tools that would become perfectly legal. What they can't do, according to what I believe the First Amendment says, is they can't go and tell, coerce social media companies or force social media companies to censor people that are jumping off things if the social media companies want to put it. I personally think if a social media company does that, that social media company should suffer in the market. There should be other social media companies saying, Look, we're not going to do these horrible things to your kids. You start to see that pushback against Facebook and other social media companies.

It's hard to imagine a social media company that would tolerate that to the extent that they could stop it. Correct.

It's just bad for business. Why would you want to do that? If it's narrowly good for business from the short run, it's certainly bad for business in the long run. I think that is a straw man argument. But In the Supreme Court hearing, that was an argument that was seriously made by the government. There was an astonishing moment. At one point, one of the justices actually said out loud, Well, if what you're saying is that the American First Amendment hinders the action of the government as if it were a new discovery. I mean, of course- Or as if that was a bad thing. Well, that's the thing. It's like the whole point is the Congress shall make no law means the government is supposed to be hinder. They're not supposed to do these things because it violates our fundamental Civil Liberties. I go further than that. I'd say that if we had had an actual functioning First Amendment during the pandemic, a lot of the harms that we saw to people, to a lot of people that would have been avoided, many people that are now dead would be alive. The government was the number one source of misinformation during the pandemic.

It put forward There's very destructive ideas, like two weeks to slow the spread, the lockdown will save us from COVID. The infection fatality rate is tremendously high when it's not. There's no real age stratification of risk. We're all equally at risk. There's no immunity after COVID recovery. The lockdowns are not all that harmful to the economy. The school closures are not that harmful to kids. Mask mandates are going to save us from COVID. Vaccines will stop the spread of COVID. A vaccine, there are no such things as vaccine injuries. You can go item after item after item. It's the government that was the primary source of misinformation. People structured their lives around this government of misinformation. Had there been a function of First Amendment, there would have been more effective pushback against these government of misinformation. The whole premise of a lot of the questioning by the Supreme Court justices was that the government got it right, and they're protecting people from misinformation, when in fact, exactly the opposite is true. Of course, that's the point of the First Amendment, is to protect the people from the government when it gets it wrong.

Which they do sometimes.

I could go on longer with the list.

We've had multiple conversations about this, about the arrogance and hypocrisy of the Fauci's of the world that actually think they know better than the entire scientific process itself. One thing I know is, I walked down this morning and there was a rally. I think it's a children's defense. I'm going to get it wrong. Children's Defense, which is RFK's nonprofit. I noticed, and this is anecdotal, but I've also been on social media all day trying to learn what's going on, anxiously waiting to see what people thought of the trial. Trial? Is it a trial?

A hearing? I don't know. I'm just a fringe epidemiologist, not a lawyer. You're not a lawyer.

It used to be that lawyers were worse than fringe epidemiologists, but now we're not so sure.

I met some good lawyers in the past. But it's not lost on me that the legacy media doesn't seem to care that much about what is surely one of the most consequential free speech cases in our lifetimes, if not ever.

And the legacy media doesn't seem to care enough to report on it very much.

Well, I I think there's a few things going on. One, the most obvious thing to me is that social media is a competitor to the big media, the print media. And as such, censorship of social media helps the bottom line of big media. So there's that aspect of things. They're trying to undermine their competition. This actually came up during the hearing. A couple of justices gave a hypothetical. They said, Well, look, if the government doesn't like a story, can't they just go? They could go to the New York Times, the Washington Post or whatever, say, Look, we don't like that you printed this story. It's a bad idea that you did it. And of course, the government does that all the time. That's, again, part of their ability to move the conversation. The President has a bully pulpit. He can say that, of course, that's legal. There's nothing inappropriate about that. But there's a few things that are really misleading about that application of that idea to our case. First and foremost, social media is, if I understand, according to this Section 230 regulation, it's not a publisher. It explicitly isn't a publisher. They can't be sued for putting a post up that's defamatory because they're just a conduit.

They're like the telephone utility or something, or a bank. They're not a publisher. They have to essentially take all commerce as long as it's legal. To You apply the standards you apply to a publisher, where the government... Even with a publisher, the government can't say, We're going to shut down the New York Times if you publish this. That would violate the First Amendment. You have two things. One, they're applying the wrong standard to a group that's just essentially, according to law, a utility in effect. Then second, the hypothetical doesn't cover what actually happened, which is this implied threat to these companies that if they publish these ideas on these people, If they allow that to be published, then they're going to get taken down. They'll be regulated out of existence. It wasn't always directly stated, but it was always in the background. The FBI comms knocking at your door, and this actually literally happened. The FBI sends messages saying, You got to suppress these people and these ideas. You're going to worry if you don't listen to them. Yeah.

I've read this on several accounts of what happened inside the Supreme Court today. There was some skepticism from justices. It didn't feel like a slam dunk for the free speech argument.

Well, I went in thinking, It's guaranteed 9:0. How could anyone want censorship? I mean, the American First Amendment is part of a civic religion. I don't think it'll mean I know, but I do hope it will win. Yeah.

The questions that have been going through my mind now for years, and you're part of another project that we're collaborating on, that the questions still remain, why? Why did they take such massive efforts to stop people like you from expressing opinion? And what? Because if they're that anxious that you're asking certain questions, what is it exactly that they're trying to cover up? And we still don't know those answers to those questions. But the whole point of the First Amendment is we have to ask those questions. Otherwise, there is virtually no limit on government tyranny. And yet you're telling me it wasn't a slam dunk.

That wasn't a slam dunk. I think it's telling that the press coverage around this hearing that preceded the hearing never mentioned me or Martin or Aaron in his write-ups. They focused on election integrity project, like whether you should be allowed to say the wrong day for when people should vote online. The headlines are all about Trump allies or winning the free speech war or whatever. I mean, I'm not a Trump ally. I'm just a scientist. And what happened during the pandemic was that the First Amendment, basically, it was abrogated. It wasn't followed, the government didn't follow it explicitly, so that scientific discussion couldn't happen. In order to create an illusion of consensus in favor of false ideas that the government itself espoused and that it pushed forward as a basis of policy. The idea that something like that could happen in the United States is still a shock to me. I never imagined such a thing was possible in the United States of America. It scares the living daylights out of me. And if the US Supreme Court doesn't say that it was wrong to have done that, if it doesn't acknowledge that at all, then I really fear for our Republic.

Well, thank you for fighting. You've paid a substantial price for doing what you do. I know all of the plaintiffs have, but this is a fight one way or another. We have to win.

We have to win this fight. We absolutely have to win this fight. It's by politics or by the Supreme Court or by legislation, whichever of those means. The people deserve serve to have the right to speak. It's an inalienable right written in. There's a reason it's the First Amendment of the Constitution, and I hope that the Supreme Court does the right thing.

Okay. Thank you for carving time for us. I know you're going from one thing to another today. Thank you.

Thank you, Matt. So good to talk.

Free the People is embarking on our most ambitious project to date to document and expose the lies behind the greatest public health failure in my lifetime. We're talking to insiders with first-hand knowledge of the government's role in funding, creating, and then covering up the COVID-19 virus in our exclusive new documentary series, The Cover-up. But I need your help. We won't get to the bottom of this scandal alone, so I'm asking viewers to crowdsource any information that could be helpful to our investigation. If you're watching this, you already know what the government did during lockdown was unforgivable. Help us get to the truth and prevent it from ever happening again. To get involved, go to freethepeople. Org/coverup. That's freethepeople. Org/coverup. The truth is out there. Thanks for watching. If you liked the conversation, make sure to like the video, subscribe, and also ring the bell for notifications. If you want to know more about Free the People, go to freethepeople. Org.