Govt/Big-Tech Censorship Battle Rages: OK's AG Drummond Silent on Critical SCOTUS Case, Supports State Bill Threatening Free Speech
Beware OK SB1100 - Exploiting Death of Child for Govt Power to Silence Opposition
In this article from The V1SUT Vantage:
The Importance of Missouri v. Biden
Elon Musk’s Twitter Files Expose Scope of Govt-Tech Online Censorship Network
Plaintiffs Join the Fight Against Biden, Fauci and Censorship
States Take Sides in Censorship Civil War: AG Drummond Keeps Oklahoma on Sideline
Exploiting Oklahoma Child’s Tragic Death and False Narratives for Increased Government Power to Silence Opposition
Beware of OK Senate Bill 1100: AG Drummond Supports Censorship Disguised as Anti-Bullying
Previous Oklahoma AG Was Quick to Combat First Amendment Threats
The Importance of Missouri v. Biden
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will hear oral arguments in a pivotal First Amendment case. The case is positioned to decide whether tech platforms, including browsers and social media providers, can willfully censor information at the behest of the federal government. In May of 2022, Attorneys general from Missouri and Louisiana filed the case (Missouri v. Biden) following the censorship of factual information countering the federal government’s narratives on medical, political and social topics during the Covid pandemic (current case action before SCOTUS is Murthy v. Missouri).
As legacy media, universities and liberal thinktanks lobbied the public to believe censoring of online “disinformation” and “misinformation” was necessary to “ensure democracy” and guard an ignorant public from making decisions counter to the wisdom of bloated and corrupt federal government institutions, states began joining the effort to pushback in defense of First Amendment liberties.
Elon Musk’s Twitter Files Expose Scope of Govt-Tech Online Censorship Network
Just months after filing, plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden gained evidence and momentum as Elon Musk took control of the social media platform Twitter (now X) in October of 2022. Musk released a trove of the company’s internal communications through journalists Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss. Known as “The Twitter Files”, those communications reveal the embedding of government agencies and operators, including those from the FBI and formerly CIA, within the social media giant and their resulting control and distortion of critical information involving Covid medical treatments, the efficacy and safety of Covid vaccines, credible reports of vaccine injury, the Hunter Biden laptop story, the disproven Trump-Russia collusion narrative and much more. The FBI was so entrenched within the ranks of Twitter, paying the company more than $3 million in payroll costs, that Taibbi dubbed Twitter “The FBI Subsidiary”.
Voices opposing government narratives were provably tamped down, suspended and deplatformed as multiple government entities met weekly to give censorship orders to not only Twitter but Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Verizon, Reddit, Pinterest, and many others. This regular meeting of the 80+ members of the Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF) involved a network of federal agencies and “other government agencies” (OTGs) from the DOJ to Fauci’s NIAID, the Pentagon and the CDC. Their work involved the creation of expansive blacklists and the banning of truthful information. Every American should view the evidence from The Twitter Files to understand how controlled public information has become and just how our nation was purposefully divided on medical and political topics. Truth was strategically withheld from the millions of Americans getting their information from both social and main stream media.
Plaintiffs Join the Fight Against Biden, Fauci and Censorship
Now conjoined to Missouri v. Biden as co-plaintiffs are Aaron Kheriaty (psychiatrist who opposed lockdowns and vaccine mandates), Jim Hoft (censored media outlet The Gateway Pundit), Martin Kulldorff and Jayanta Bhattacharya (epidemiologists who co-wrote the Great Barrington Declaration), and Jill Hines (anti-lockdown activist). Joe Biden, the Department of Health & Human Services and several federal bureaucrats, including Anthony Fauci, are named as defendants.
According to filings within the suit (Missouri v. Biden), plaintiffs claim, in part:
“For the last few years—at least since the 2020 presidential transition—a group of federal officials has been in regular contact with nearly every major American social-media company about the spread of “misinformation” on their platforms. In their concern, those officials—hailing from the White House, the CDC, the FBI, and a few other agencies—urged the platforms to remove disfavored content and accounts from their sites. And, the platforms seemingly complied. They gave the officials access to an expedited reporting system, downgraded or removed flagged posts, and deplatformed users. The platforms also changed their internal policies to capture more flagged content and sent steady reports on their moderation activities to the officials. That went on through the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2022 congressional election, and continues to this day. Enter this lawsuit…”
“Their content touched on a host of divisive topics like the COVID-19 lab-leak theory, pandemic lockdowns, vaccine side-effects, election fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story. The Plaintiffs maintain that although the platforms stifled their speech, the government officials were the ones pulling the strings—they “coerced, threatened, and pressured [the] social-media platforms to censor [them]” through private communications and legal threats…”
“In response, the officials argued that they only “sought to mitigate the hazards of online misinformation” by “calling attention to content” that violated the “platforms’ policies,” a form of permissible government speech.”
States Take Sides in Censorship Civil War: AG Drummond Keeps Oklahoma on Sideline
As the Missouri v. Biden case has progressed, the nation now finds itself in a censorship civil war, as16 other states and the Arizona legislature have filed amicus briefs in support of the plaintiffs, and 22 states and Washington D.C. have filed briefs in support of the Biden administration and government controlled censorship. Including the two state plaintiffs in the case, 18 states are fighting for your right to make critical decisions based upon open access to all relevant information while 23 states/territories are fighting to control what you know, and therefore, what you do.
Notably missing from the shortlist of state attorneys general choosing to publicly support either freedom or mass censorship in this case is Oklahoma’s AG Gentner Drummond. During his 2022 campaign for the office, Drummond represented himself as a strong defender of individual freedoms.
This publication reached out to AG Drummond’s office requesting comment concerning Missouri v. Biden and his status as one of only ten AG’s who have yet to file a related brief. As of publication, there has been no response from AG Drummond or his team.
Exploiting Child’s Tragic Death and False Narratives for Increased Government Power to Silence Opposition
The tragic loss of yet another child confused by the great lie of gender fluidity is being distorted and used by many, including Oklahoma’s AG. After an onslaught of false and irresponsible reporting by legacy media that claimed 16-year-old, female Owasso High School student Dagney Benedict had died due to head trauma after being beaten in a school bathroom because she identified as non-binary, evidence has revealed a very different story.
Within bodycam footage of School Resource Officer Caleb Thompson (Owasso PD) interviewing Dagney Benedict and her grandmother/guardian (Sue Benedict) on the day of the altercation, Dagney Benedict admits to inciting the fight by throwing water on three younger students she believed were commenting on the way she and her friend laugh. Benedict reports she did not know the three younger students prior to that week and did not report any bullying concerning them to school staff, dispelling the narrative of a prolonged pattern of bullying.
Contrary to reports claiming Benedict was jumped in a 3-on-1 fight, Benedict admits to initiating the assaultive behavior and states her friend “tried to jump in”. Benedict states, “I threw one of them into a paper towel dispenser”. During the interview, and contrary to media reports which refer to the child as “Nex” or “he”, Sue Benedict consistently refers to her granddaughter as “Dagney” or “she” with no objection from the child.
(Bodycam/interview (2/7/24-4:00pm) and 911 call (2/8/24-1:00 pm): The Oklahoman)
In the video, Officer Thompson explains in depth why, in the eyes of the law, Dagney started the assault by throwing the water, and Sue Benedict chose to handle the situation through the school and not to file charges:
“Yes, I can technically do a report for the assault and battery. Absolutely, okay, because it’s unwanted touching of one individual to another. They put their hands on you, okay, and it was unwanted. I will also tell you though, that old saying what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, meaning the way the courts are going to look at it as it’s a mutual fight. So both parties are victims but both parties are also suspects in this. You get what I’m saying? You’re an offender as well. So I will absolutely do a report if that’s what you want…but I’m just letting you know, if the other party wants to do the same thing…the assault will be on her (Dagney) as well because she first assaulted. She’s the one that initiated it essentially because we’ve got freedom of speech. You can do all this (speak) all day long…The moment she (Dagney) threw that water, you’ve now assaulted somebody. You made the first jab. It doesn’t make it right but they defended themselves, quote unquote. You retaliated back. Now we’ve got this back and forth when both parties had equal opportunity to separate. So that’s where I’m saying it’s not going to be in the best of light for you but I can absolutely do that if that’s what you’d like. I’m just telling you it may not go in the direction you want it to go…Based on her own admittance on the camera as well as whenever else, she (Dagney) essentially started it...Running the mouth is freedom of speech…you’ve got to let it roll of your shoulder…If you had not of done that (thrown water) we may not even be here.” - Officer Caleb Thompson (Owasso PD) within bodycam video
An autopsy and toxicology report have since revealed Benedict committed suicide through an overdose of Fluoxetine (Prozac) and Diphenhydramine (Benadryl).
In addition, during a 911 call initiated by Sue Benedict on the day of Dagney’s death, Benedict informed the dispatcher Dagney also regularly took Seroquel with Prozac at bedtime. Both Prozac and Seroquel carry FDA required blackbox warnings due to an “increased risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in children, adolescents and young adults”.
Rather than explore logical questions about what actually led this child to end her own life, the media and those seeking the power to control public discourse have doubled-down on the need to censor speech under the guise of preventing bullying:
Was Dagney, like so many other adolescents who perceive themselves to be in situational trouble, panicked since learning assault charges could be filed against her?
What previous mental health diagnoses led to Dagney being prescribed both an antidepressant and an antipsychotic medication?
What detrimental effects are the widespread use of psychotropic pharmaceuticals having on children?
What conditions/treatment did Dagney experience that caused her to come into her grandmother’s guardianship?
Why are children more likely to commit suicide after being drawn into the world of alternate sexualities and gender identities?
Legacy media and politicians appear unwilling to learn why this precious child is gone or how to prevent similar teen suicides. It’s all about hate speech, and Oklahoma’s State Senate just used Dagney’s death to advance a bill aimed at criminalizing online and electronic discourse. No evidence of online, text or phone bullying has been credibly reported in association with Dagney’s tragic passing.
Beware of OK Senate Bill 1100: Drummond Supports Censorship Disguised as Anti-Bullying
Last Thursday (3/14/24), the Oklahoma State Senate passed SB1100 on to the State House of Representatives by a vote of 38-8. Only two Republicans (Dahm and Deevers) and six Democrats voted against this concerning measure which was sponsored by Senator Paul Rosino (R) and Representative Steve Bashore (R) . The bill amends 21 O.S. 2021 and essentially criminalizes any telecommunication, online or electronic communication that someone else deems “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent”, believes to be intended to “terrify, intimidate or harass, or threaten to inflict injury or, physical harm, or severe emotional distress to any person” or put the party “in fear of physical harm or death” or “annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person”. This includes social media posts, and the bill contains no provision for constitutionally protected activity.
In a world where an increasing number of people claim words, and sometimes just disagreeing with their views, to be violence, SB1100 potentially threatens Oklahomans with jailtime for simply expressing their sincerely held beliefs. A first offense can jail an Oklahomans for 30 days. A second offense is a felony punishable by up to a year of imprisonment.
AG Gentner Drummond was quick to leverage Dagney Benedict’s death and jump on board with a series of posts on X as the Oklahoma State Senate was considering SB1100:
Most telling is that the bill, if approved, is slated to take effect on November 1st, 2024, four days before the presidential election. Could SB1100 be an early November surprise from Oklahoma RINOs? Who might be their first target for prosecution under SB1100?
History has consistently proven those who do not fight for and routinely test the boundaries of free speech are destined to be silenced. (Link to find and contact your House Representative concerning SB1100)
Previous Oklahoma AG Was Quick to Combat First Amendment Threats
Drummond’s predecessor, former Oklahoma AG John O’Connor, was among the first to publicly oppose the Biden administration’s attack on First Amendment freedoms through its attempt to form a federal Disinformation Governance Board that would advise the US Department of Homeland Security. Controversial figure Nina Jankowicz was appointed to head the censorship arm of the Biden Administration. In a 2021 op-ed, Jankowicz explained why Volodymyr Zelensky was justified in shutting down Ukrainian media outlets not under government control over “disinformation”, despite Zelensky previously campaigning against the practice. Jankowicz’s unbalanced Mary Poppins parody on disinformation brought intense public scrutiny (below).
In May of 2022, then Oklahoma AG O’Connor, along with 18 other state attorneys general, signed on to a letter addressed to Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas firmly denouncing the board and its thinly veiled purpose of silencing political dissent and controlling the digital public square. The joint effort by the attorneys general succeeded and the idea of such a board was abandoned.
In contrast, Drummond’s campaign promise to “serve the people of Oklahoma, not the political elite” appears to have faded as his office has engaged in political lawfare contrary to the views of the majority of Oklahomans. Drummond has opposed parents’ rights to choose a religious virtual charter and protect their children from pornographic library books at school.
AG Drummond’s actions since taking office last year have more closely aligned with the funds behind his campaign than the will of the majority of Oklahomans. As previously reported, Drummond’s 2022 financial backers overlapped significantly with those of US Senator James Lankford (R) and then gubernatorial candidate Joy Hofmeister (D). The AG’s Chief of Staff, Trebor Worthen, is one of Oklahoma’s most notorious political operatives. It’s worth a look back. Links to previous reporting:
Have a tip or information you’d like to share with The V1SUT Vantage? Comment publicly to this post or email privately (connect@v1sut.com).
Copyright Notice: Individual readers are encouraged to share this original content. Others, including publications, aggregators and social media outlets not operating as an individual must request and receive written permission from The V1SUT Vantage before using this content in whole or in part. Email connect@V1SUT.com to request permission.
