🚨🚨🚨 CRITICAL 🚨🚨🚨
Filed Today: A Landmark Cert Petition That Could Literally Save Free Speech in America
The Future of the Internet, Fair Competition, and Constitutional Rights now rests with the Supreme Court.🙏 @realDonaldTrump @AGPamBondi
(1/15)
2/

🚨 As Zuckerberg begs Trump to drop the antitrust suit, Fyk v. Facebook heads back to SCOTUS—fighting the very antitrust CA courts buried to protect govt-backed censorship. Trump must say no. DOJ must weigh in. SCOTUS must act!

@dojphofficial @realDonaldTrump @PamBondi @GenFlynn

🚨BOMBSHELL REVELATION 02🚨

The case Bollinger v. DOS et al. (@TyCharleneB) recently uncovered that the CCDH "Disinformation Dozen" report WAS NOT an independent exposé—it was actually a government-coordinated assault on Americans' free speech.

In a joint effort between the U.K. and U.S. governments, the White House conspired with Facebook, Twitter, state attorneys general, Congress, and the CCDH to meticulously craft and execute every aspect of the CCDH censorship campaign. From requesting and providing Facebook’s "vaccine-hesitancy" data to the CCDH - to timing the CCDH report’s public release - to aligning it with the March 25th PREPLANNED Congressional misinformation hearing, this whole censorship operation was a PREMEDITATED calculated, multinational effort to target and suppress Americans' constitutionally protected speech.

This wasn’t simply Big Tech silencing dissent based on misinformation—it was a state-sponsored conspiracy designed to crush opposing voices. The evidence is undeniable (see abreviated timeline): our government actively planned and collaborated with private organizations to suppress free speech and attack dissenting Americans.

In other words, the CCDH didn’t just uncover some misinformation—it was complicit in manufacturing it for the government. This is huge!

To download the full complaint: socialmediafreedom.org/wp-content/upl…
Here’s an ultra-simplified version:

1. The US and UK collaborate to suppress free speech.

2. Congress renews antitrust threats against Big Tech.

3. IRS grants CCDH 501(c)(3) status, enabling semi-diplomatic operations in the US.

4. White House directly engages Twitter and Facebook to target RFK Jr. and antivaxxers.

5. Congress preplans the March 25th hearing.

6. White House requests vaccine hesitancy data.

7. CCDH tweets a hit list based on Facebook data provided by the White House.

8. CCDH gives AGs, Congress, and media advance copies of the "Disinfo Dozen" report to coordinate a censorship campaign.

9. CCDH publicly releases its report, prompting 12 AGs to call for censorship that same day.

10. Preplanned congressional hearing occurs, with demands for Big Tech censorship.

11. White House and U.S. Surgeon General publicly call for censorship soon after.

12. Within a month, Big Tech begins aggressively censoring the public.

🚨TREASON EXPOSED🚨

Recent revelations in Bollinger v DOS et al. (@TyCharleneB) point to a stunning conspiracy: the U.S. and U.K. governments, in coordination with Big Tech and the CCDH, orchestrated a calculated and premeditated assault on Americans' free speech.

For the past eight months, I’ve had the honor and privilege of working alongside Jeff Greyber as counsel on one of the most significant lawsuits in modern history.

The government's strategy wasn't about fighting "misinformation"—it was about silencing dissent. Facebook provided "vaccine - hesitancy" data directly to and at the request of the White House, which then directed the CCDH to create a hit piece targeting American citizens, timed perfectly with a preplanned Congressional hearing.

In light of Mark Zuckerberg’s recent admissions about Facebook’s biases and systemic issues, the scope of this collusion raises serious questions. Could Zuckerberg now face criminal investigations for Facebook’s role in this government-backed censorship scheme?

This is no longer about policy—it’s treason. Our government worked with foreign powers and private corporations to crush constitutionally protected speech.

This is, as the complaint states, "as bad as it gets."

#FreeSpeech #BigTechTreason

To download a pdf copy if the 281 page complaint: socialmediafreedom.org/wp-content/upl…


@IvanRaiklin @KenPaxtonTX @annvandersteel @DavidJHarrisJr @TuckerCarlson @realDonaldTrump @PamBondi @Jim_Jordan @FmrRepMattGaetz

Will the courts finally fix Section 230?
We are about to find out...
Oral arguments are set for October.🧐

Now, nearly a dozen cases PROVE that my case was dismissed incorrectly (i.e., 230 was applied wrong).

Section 230(c)(1) cannot be unfettered prior restraint authority - immunity, otherwise it is unconstitutional as applied.

That is not just our opinion, that is also the opinion of Chat GPT 4o. Yes, even Ai recognizes the courts made a mistake here. Read the attached documents below, they are an eye opener!

We are now challenging the law itself in a Rule 5.1 Constitutional Challenge. Read here:

This decision will either correct and unify the application of Section 230, or it will determine that our constitutional rights no longer exist on the Internet. It is either the courts fix this manifest injustice, or they choose to willfully deny me of my right to challenge a law that denied me of a legal right. That's extraordinary!

I pray that the 9th Circuit does the right thing and sees true to uphold the law and my rights. And, although it is uncharted territory, Big Tech will finally be legally liable for their own conduct if that conduct is not done in "good faith," and as a "Good Samaritan."

Please support our efforts to preserve YOUR rights on the Internet @ the Social Media Freedom Foundation.

https://x.com/JasonFyk/status/1766486397160984784?t=r-qbEuISDVySKjwFJ3XDxw&s=19

I have read so many posts about Section 230 from people that have absolutely no idea how it works, or even what it says.

Below is a harmonious simplification of the entire statute, and how it should work as a whole:

1/10 §230(c) (Motivation): the “Good Samaritan” general provision, must be considered (1) in the interest of the public, (2) at the onset of
litigation, and (3) applied in the interest of others (i.e., not for the benefit or interest of the ICS provider or user).

2/10

🚨Fyk v Facebook Supreme Court Petition🚨

The courts / government have robbed everyone of Due Process and Free Speech through the misapplication of Section 230(c)(1) "super-immunity" ~ @SenTedCruz

The Supreme Court must hear this petition to protect all of our rights!

1/13 2/13
Section 230 ultra simplified.
Introduction to the petition

This is the origin of Section 230's mistaken application. If you want to understand why Big Tech cannot be held accountable for anything, this is why AND it's an easy fix.

Let it be known, that on December 6th 2022 the @US9thCircuit received my personally sworn affidavit of notice of awareness and demand for remedy by necessity.
Maxim: "Necessity overrules the law." Hob 144;
"In cases of extreme necessity compels, it justifies." Hale, P.C. 54. Our forefathers, who started this nation, said that the only way to stay free, is to frequently teach our servants.
Did our forefathers tell the bar association to teach government the fundamentals or the People?

How did Big Tech get so big?
Consider how Section 230(c)(1) changes meaning, if you change one simple word?

SCOTUS can fix this whole mess by simply giving the word "the" effect.

This is far more important than it seems. Let's just say, words matter when determining who is who.

“In this country, [@9th_court] like to boast that persons who come to court are entitled to have independent judges, not politically motivated actors, resolve their rights and duties under law. Here we promise, individuals may appeal to neutral magistrates to resolve... 1/4 their disputes about "what the law is." Everyone, we say, is entitled to a judicial decision "without respect to person," and to be a "fair trial in fair tribunal." (Cite omitted) Under a broad reading of Chevron, however, courts often fail to deliver on all these promises. 2/4

Big Tech acts as the FCC
"Congress has given (Big Tech) the responsibility (Section 230) for administratively enforcing the law that governs these types of broadcasts (Community Standards). (Big Tech) has authority to issue... penalties (restrict materials)... or deny (access)" Private Entity vs. FCC
"The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech."

🚨🚨🚨
Supreme Court Certiorari (full doc)
Fyk vs. Facebook
Docket #20-632
🚨🚨🚨
We MUST be heard!
#Section230
#FYKs230

@realDonaldTrump
@tedcruz
@HawleyMO
@LindseyGrahamSC
@dbongino
@DavidJHarrisJr
@marklevinshow
@tracybeanz
@Jim_Jordan
@TulsiGabbard
@TuckerCarlson