The Highwire with Del Bigtree - FREE SPEECH ON THE LINE

Episode Date: March 25, 2024

Jill Hines, co-director for Health Freedom Louisiana and plaintiff in the Murthy v. Missouri case, gives her first hand account of the oral arguments before the Supreme Court for this controversial free speech case, as well as the government censorship her organization received which led to her becoming a plaintiff.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

Many of us stepped out into the high wire on this Monday in Washington, D.C., where maybe one of the most important cases in American history is being heard. It literally is dealing with our First Amendment right, that right to free speech. Do we have it? Do we not? Does the government get to get involved and interfere with our ability to communicate information to each other? There was many great speakers about freedom, many that have been on this show that have discussed medical freedom and the coronavirus and what happened during the pandemic. Should this case not settle the right way, then it says to the government, it's okay to push your narrative and threaten social media companies that allow people to speak out against you. To me, that's the end of freedom as we know it.

But you didn't see this live stream on CNN or MSNBC or even Fox. I'm not sure how much they care about free speech. But if you did and you do, then you would have watched this stream live on the high wire. And it looked a little bit like this. I'm here to bear witness to a turning point in our nation's history to possibly be the unraveling of our American democracy. We've got the Supreme Court right behind us hearing one of the most important cases in the history of this nation. If we do not have a right to free speech, then we no longer have the right to freedom.

This case is about the government impermissibly bullying and coercing social media to do what the government itself cannot do, to tamp down protected speech. And I don't think it's hyperbole to say that free speech, One of the cornerstones of our democracy hangs in the balance today. This is going to decide who we are as a country. Are we going to be a totalitarian state, but the government gets to tell us what to do, what to say, what to think? Are we going to have a free society like we've had before? The government created a massive network of organizations involving the FBI,

the federal government, the president's office, SESA, to collude, our social media networks to censor and cancel speech that it didn't like. I pray that they will really go back and look at the record and they will see that what this really was about was targeting speech by government actors that did not conform to government orthodox. So we're here to try to get some redress to ask the court to intervene and tell the government, no, you cannot bully the social media platforms. platforms. You cannot coerce them. You cannot strong-arm them or job on them to do your bidding.

The people who want to control speech see them the technologies, whatever they are, radio, television. That's how information is distributed. With the invention of the engine act, you understand what happened, right? It turned every single citizen, potentially, into an editor, into a content creator. Most of this country has no idea. how much censorship is occurring. We've been censored at the medical journals. We've been censored by taking down off of YouTube, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, Shopify, PayPal, Femio, dropped us as clients.

We couldn't even put out a press release anymore. The medical journals are captured, the main media are captured, so that the truth has been hidden from Americans in the rest of the world. And this has allowed them to get away with committing what is one of the most severe atrocities of recent memorabilia. They sent emails to social media companies saying to take down posts

that stated that natural immunity is superior to that a vaccine-induced immune. They convinced over 5 billion people that natural immunity is not the right. thing and you should take this shot. These government doctors hijacked our exam rooms, hijacked your right to bodily autonomy and informed consent, and without a vote, declared themselves the experts. They were the science, and they were in charge. Many of us were censored, shut down for telling the truth,

telling you that this looked like it's man-made from the lab. And what would have happened had we actually had that information on time. What would have happened if every scientist that knew this was a lab leak said, we've got to get inside that laboratory immediately and find out what this is, what's going on, instead of sending shells from eco-health. You and I are united with people across this entire globe. Have you seen them protesting in the streets by the millions,

Whether it's Australia or Austria or the UK or Germany, they are marching in the streets because they understand what you and I understand, which is that freedom is everything. When we wake up to realize that there's no hero out there other than the hero in here, in you and the forces within and that you are the one, when we wake up to that and realize that this is the hero's journey we're on, Maybe we'll have filled a deep gratitude. We must now correct our course.

Now it's time for us to return to truth. And so in the preliminary injunction, the court sided with us, and we expect them to side with us today and turn this American Republic back to truth. This has to stop. You guys are being starved of information, which is leading to immense suffering, suffering and death. Hopefully this case will prevail and that we will be allowed to speak the truth

because it's the truth that will set us free. The truth will be there. Well, it was an incredible day, very exciting. It's always amazing to stand in front of our Supreme Court and especially on an issue as important as this. For those of you that haven't really been following this, this is originally the case of Missouri versus Biden. It's now Murthy versus Missouri. And at the heart of this case, obviously, is the Biden administration threatening social media companies to take away their sort of protections, right, that they are, that they're not responsible for the things said by people on their site. That's how social media works. If they were held responsible for everything that was said, then they couldn't have a social media site. And that's what the government was basically.

threatening them. We're going to take away that provision, that protection, and now anyone can sue you for anything that's misstated, that would be a really terrible precedent. And that's a huge threat. I mean, really, it's blackmailing to get what they wanted. But let's be clear, the Supreme Court is not hearing that case. What they're deciding upon is the preliminary injunction that has taken place. This is still a case that could, who knows, be years out. But what was decided by the lower court was we're going to put forward a preliminary injunction so that the government, the Biden administration right now or any whoever gets elected next, if this case is still sitting in court, that they cannot be abusing this.

They cannot continue this reign of censorship until this case is heard. That injunction was held up by the appellate court that made some adjustments, refined it a little bit, but also said yes, the government should not be. be allowed to continue these practices until this trial has gone through. And so the Supreme Court is simply ruling on this should this injunction stand. They're not going to decide the full merits of the case, but let's be clear. When you're deciding on a preliminary injunction, really the idea has to be that the plaintiffs or the ones that brought the case have a good enough case that they could win. And therefore, if it's possible that they're going to prove

that this was illegal, that illegal action shouldn't keep happening while we're waiting for the case. So that's at the heart of what is taking place here. I was not able to be inside of the Supreme Court. Many of us were outside, but I am joined by Jill Hines, who was inside. Why was she inside the court? Because she is one of the plaintiffs in the case. So Jill, thank you so much for joining us on the Highwire today. Thanks for having me down. So this is a really, really important case, and I'd be, you know, lying if I didn't say I'm a little jealous that you got to sit in and listen to maybe some of the most important discussions and, you know, and a hearing that may ever happen in our lifetime. And so just from your perspective, first, just tell me, how did you get to be a plaintiff in this case? Sure. Well, it started back in 2020 when the censorship became obvious. We had actually started our organization Health Freedom, Louisiana, the summer before COVID hit. So we knew when all of this was going down that it was not going to be pretty. And around April of 2020. So you were psychic. No, I talked about that in my speech. I'm not psychic. We knew how this was going to be played. We'd seen the

writing on the wall. Exactly. I joke that I'm not a profit, but we could see, in fact, what was coming down the pipeline. But we started another grassroots effort in April of 2020 called Reopen Louisiana, urging our fellow Louisianaans to open their business. We were voice for them on social media. And it was a new social media outlet for us. So we were able to actually see how our analytics and our reach across the state grew. And it grew exponentially from April until about October. There you see. We were reaching between 1.3 and 1.4 million people from from nothing really in April of 2020. So our voice and our advocacy became very popular. And then, of course, we got hit with, and we had been getting hit with small infractions along the

but in October of 2020, we got slammed with a really hard Facebook infraction. And from that point on, our reach was just incredibly minimal. And of course, I did a lot of complaining about that on social media. And then in May of 2021, I was given the opportunity to testify in front of our legislature on behalf of a bill for free speech on social media. And I described our experience in my testimony. before the legislature. And I'm not sure if that, you know,

was kept at the back of the mind of our Solicitor General Liz Murrell at the time, our Attorney General Jeff Landry, who of course is now our governor in the state of Louisiana. But eventually they approached us and asked if we would write a declaration in support of a lawsuit

that they were going to file against the Biden administration for their efforts to censor Americans online. Americans online and we jumped at the opportunity. We had the screenshots that I just showed you right there. I was sending screenshots to my business partners saying, can you believe they hit us for this infraction? But take a look at our growth on social media and then, of course, the rapid decline. So we were a great, you know, example of censorship on social media. We drafted it out in our declaration. And after that, of course, the opportunity you're ready.

to sue as a plaintiff. And again, we're a great example of that. You know, we discussed mask, mandates, vaccines. We also, because of reopened Louisiana, discussed the elections. So we had experience in every basic, every topic of censorship. So we were perfect plaintiffs for this lawsuit. Can I just ask, I mean, I love, you are. You keep saying, you know, we were just, you know, sort of right place, right time. It was, you know, you were the right people. What's your background? Are you a lawyer, a doctor? Like, how'd you get in the middle of all this? No. No, I'm a state-at-home mom. I've been a stay-at-home mom for almost 25 years now, homeschooled for almost 15 years. Of course, I've been in vaccine advocacy for several years.

I started out on the board of the Georgia Coalition for Vaccine Choice when we lived in Georgia with our friend Sandy Marcus. Then we moved back to Louisiana, and I helped found and start Health Freedom, Louisiana with my co-directors, Ashley, Houston, and Fiorella Trapani. Also at the time, stay-at-home moms. So no legal background necessarily, no medical background. Just stay-at-home moms passionate about vaccine choice. You know, I really love this story. I love you. I love that you're in the middle of it because it represents to me what makes America so great. That it's, you know, you don't have to be You don't have to be a lawyer.

You don't have to be a dot. Like, you mean, you were just a citizen in this country doing what citizens should be allowed to do, which is to voice your opinion about what you're seeing, how it's going to affect your children, your family, your businesses. And now here you find yourself in, you know, in the Supreme Court in the middle of, as I've said, what may be a defining moment for America. So you were in the courtroom. Tell me just a little bit of, you know, your sense of what took place in this.

there, you know, what was the energy, you know, just, you know, what happened in there that we didn't see? It was a little tense. I guess that's the best way to describe it. It's an incredibly surreal experience, you know, going through security, giving up everything. We didn't have our phones or anything going inside, escorted every step of the way, basically, by the marshals or people, the security inside. And of course, once it got started, my view was blocked because there's security in front of every section within the Supreme Court. Finally, I was able to see I was sitting directly in front of Justice Thomas. And I've jokingly said that Justice Thomas, of course, he's my favorite of all the justices, but looking at him in action, I don't think he has

a poker face. My impression was that he was extremely frustrated with his fellow justices, especially the more liberal-meaning justices. At one point, he literally reclined his chair, and you've seen pictures of their chairs, they stick up above their heads. He literally reclined flat and just looked up at the ceiling. I think in frustration, that was my interpretation of it. But it was an interesting experience. They were all focused on the solicitor generals that were in front of them arguing. I was not happy with the direction that some of them took in their arguments implying that, you know, our speech, the speech that was censored was in some way insightful or in any way contradicted the First Amendment. Our speech is protected.

We literally voiced opinions on social media and it is protected speech. We never incited anyone to violence. We never, you know, portrayed children in inappropriate ways. So our speech was protected. And so for them to imply that, you know, what they were investigating was in some way contradictory for First Amendment protections is just ridiculous. Can I ask you a question? Because I'm going to assume that I know the answer, but I don't want to make an assumption. It seems to me as I'm hearing this case being discussed, the one thing that's, you know, are the, you know, your attorneys representing the people people. Is it being brought up that while this censorship was happening, the statements that were being censored have now proven to be actually scientifically accurate and the statements that, you know,

the reason it was being censored was that the government was actually the one misinforming. Is that point being made? The point has been made in previous hearings. I wish it had been hammered home a little bit more in this one. But yes, and Judge Doty, who actually originally issued the original preliminary injunction last July 4th, which I think is also incredibly intentional and purposeful to release that ruling on July 4th. He asked the government's attorneys during that May hearing back in 23, he said, if I said masks don't work is that protected speech. And incredibly, the government's attorney said, possibly. And we were in shock. He gave a series of examples. If I said the 2020 election was stolen, is that protected speech? And the government's attorney said possibly.

He just went through a series of it. And he said, and they were implied that, you know, they were protecting us from Russian operatives. And Judge Doty said, pretend you're talking about my, my clerk here from Bastrop, Louisiana. If he says, you know, the vaccines cause harm, is that protective speech? And the government's attorney said possibly. And all of these things, of course, are issues that have been proven factual that the government initially implied were incorrect. So, yeah, the judge is very well in tune to what the government has been doing. Do you feel it any way? It's my last really question for you.

Do you have a sense of how they're going to decide and know it's just an opinion and perspective, or was it just really hard to tell the way that the conversation went on? Well, we do have standing. I think that was made very clear in the hearing in front of the justices. We have standing. I was censored, still being censored. So we have standing. If they look at the briefs, then we have standing.

have no problem. Judge Doty said, again, in his July 4th ruling, that the evidence is in our favor, we have a clear-cut case. So if the justices take the time to read the evidence, read the briefs in front of them, then we win. You know, I actually do have another question, because my understanding is in the middle of this case that you, that Tony Fauci was actually brought in, and you were in the room. What was the line of questioning for Tony Fouch? Fauci, you know, when they were talking to him. Yeah, that was an incredibly, another incredibly surreal experience. I can't tell you how surreal this entire experience has been from beginning.

And be clear, that didn't happen for the Supreme Court, right? This was, this is a different hearing. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, this was just in the line of depositions and evidence, finding evidence. They deposed several government actors, one of them, of course, being Anthony Fauci and myself, and one of the other plaintiffs, Jim Hoff, who's under separate counsel for me,

that he and I were the only civilians, basically, in the room that day that decided to attend that deposition. Incredibly enlightening. Tony Fauci, of course, that was the time that he said that he could not recall 174 times. Wow. And, of course, now he's writing a book, so he has recalled something.

But that day, he couldn't recall 174 questions that they asked him. But he did say that, you know, the gold standard of science would be a randomized controlled study. And they asked for an example of that, you know, from February to March when he started recommending mask. And he could not offer a study, even though he had been asked, you know, what's the gold standard of testing? So our attorney that day, John Sauer, was incredibly accurate in honing in and pulling out inaccuracies in this man's statement. It was an interesting day. Wow, amazing. Well, look, I want to thank you for taking the time.

First of all, and I want to thank you for your perseverance in fighting for your voice, speaking up for your voice, standing at capitals, going into hearings and stating your place. I mean, I've said it before. It's really, you know, in the nearly 10 years now that I've been in this space, it's the warrior moms that I think we will have to thank for saving our country, for maintaining freedom. So many men have been in asleep at the wheel. I mean, I'm generalizing, of course, but it really is, as I've traveled this country, it's people just like you, and it's what makes this country great. So thank you for your dedication to our nation. Thank you for being such an incredible citizen and enlightening us

on what took place on Monday. Thanks for your time. It was my pleasure. All right. Take care.