All Episodes
Previous Next
May 27, 2024 - Health Ranger - Mike Adams
01:10:26
Attorney Jeffrey Greyber and tech censorship expert Jason Fyk join Mike Adams...
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's interview on BrightTown.com.
Actually, this is big breaking news plus an interview with our lead attorney and also an expert consultant because we are about to make history today thanks to your support.
And by the way, happy Memorial Day.
We greatly appreciate all the veterans who fought for the freedoms that America is supposed to enjoy.
And our lawsuit today is quite appropriate that we're filing it today because the federal government is attacking the freedoms that our ancestors, our brothers and sisters and fathers and sons and mothers and daughters fought for.
And one of those is the freedom to speak without government interference.
And yet, here we are today, in a time when our federal government literally conspires with foreign entities to censor, to deplatform, and defame American citizens, such as myself, and American companies, such as Brighteon and Webseed.
And so today we are filing an historic lawsuit, and you can show my screen here.
This is Webseed and Brighteon Media Inc.
We are suing the Department of State, as you can see here, the Global Engagement Center, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, NewsGuard Technologies, Institute for Strategic Dialogue, and so on, including Google, as well as suing Facebook and Twitter, For their involvement in this grand global conspiracy to censor the freedom of speech of the American people.
And joining me to help navigate and explain this extensive, truly historic lawsuit is our lead attorney, Jeff Graber, and our expert consultant, Jason Fike.
Welcome, gentlemen, to the show today.
Thank you for joining me.
Thank you for having us.
Thanks, Mike.
Let's start with some introductions, because this may be the first time our audience has seen either one of you, although, Jason, I've interviewed you previously.
But let's start with Jeff.
Could you just give us a little bit of your background and your involvement in this historic lawsuit?
Sure, Mike.
I am situated in Florida, but practice all throughout the country, and I'm a little bit Very broadly speaking, in the civil litigation arena, that's very broad, but takes out things like criminal and whatnot.
I've been practicing for 17 years.
About six, seven, eight years ago at this point, I met Jason Fick, and Jason and I started to get into this social media ordeal.
Now, as we're going to discuss, Mike, the Brighteon and Webseed situation involves more than big tech, social media, your Facebooks, your Googles and whatnot.
And we'll get into that.
But what you're seeing now, Publicized a fair bit.
Was buried back in 2016, 2015 when I first came to know Jason.
And it was Big Tech's first run with censorship, which involves suppression of free speech, deprivation of due process, what have you, in relation to the 2016 election cycle.
And no one made a big deal of it.
In fact, I think a lot of people figured Jason and I were crazy, and Jason might elaborate on what his personal circumstances were that even got us into this social media realm.
But yeah, Mike, we've been fighting social media, the big tech giants for six, eight years now.
It's involved a couple trips to the United States Supreme Court, all over the country, California, And it's become really, really, really, really bad.
Social media's efforts to suppress, you know, free speech.
You're talking about ideologies, philosophies, politics.
We're hearing that even the FBI... Just announced that they're going to step up now more collusion or complicity with big tech in the run-up to the election later this year in order to suppress more voices that they don't want to hear.
So we'll get back to that in a moment Jeff and thank you for your introduction.
Let's introduce Jason.
Jason you've been involved in a lot of litigation here for a number of years.
Including in some of your own businesses that were destroyed and censored.
So Jason, give us your introduction if you would please.
What brought you to this point and your role as an expert consultant in this lawsuit?
Well, thank you for having me, Mike.
Yeah, I've spent a number of years, as Jeff was saying, that I had met Jeff years ago, and he worked as my counsel.
We sued Facebook, now Meta.
We've taken it to the Supreme Court twice.
And the issues that we've been mostly fighting is the Section 230 issue.
The courts applied it wrong in my case, and we have been predominantly stonewalled.
They don't want to fix this.
But because of the years of in and out of court after court after court after court, I became effectively probably the most proficient in Section 230 in the world.
there's a lot of people that think they understand this law, but we can generally pull it apart.
And, of course, what that did is that led me sort of to a public figure sort of situation.
And, of course, then you and I cross paths because, you know, everybody, I mean, it's almost universal now.
If you haven't been suppressed by, you know, Google X, formerly Twitter or Meta, then you haven't been saying anything of any value yet because the reality of the world is that they are suppressing speech.
And although my case was much more business oriented, they realized that those same tools that they were using for suppressing businesses – We're turned more towards free speech, and anybody that dissents with the government now, they will come after you.
So, of course, what that did is that led me into a position where I was an expert in this situation, and that led us here, where Jeff Graber, myself, and you, and Webseed, and Brighteon really looked into this, and it turned out that there was some nefarious stuff going on.
Well, I think of you two as a formidable tag team in this lawsuit effort, and that's why I've described this as historic.
Now, I have to say that both of you have been researching this and building this case and authoring this complaint.
For, what, 18 months or something like that now.
It's been an extended period of time.
And during that process, a lot has been discovered that was not known before.
For example, when you, with your cases with Section 230, you did not have access to a lot of the information.
Some of it has come out in FOIA requests.
Some of it has come out in discovery of other lawsuits, such as Missouri v.
Biden, I believe, is one of them.
But I'd like to ask first Jeff and then you, Jason, but Jeff, talk to us about what is unique, uniquely relevant or pivotal in this complaint that has not been featured in previous attempts to directly sue big tech for deplatforming and censorship.
Sure.
What we believe, Mike, sets this case aside from others is, you know, whereas in the past you've seen the Jason Fick type lawsuit go after the social media giants themselves for, in his case, crushing his livelihood.
In his case, Facebook.
Whereas you've seen that, okay, across the country for some time now.
And whereas fairly recently, you also saw Ken Paxton, Texas AG, along with The Daily Wire and The Federalist, commence a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas Federal Court.
And they are focused primarily on Government's involvement with third-party censorship companies, third-party censorship tools, and we'll get into what those companies are and what they mean in a moment,
but you're talking about like NewsGuard, Information Strategic Dialogue, ISD, the GDI, Global Disinformation Index, and Two out of three of which are abroad, foreign entities suppressing domestic speech as if it wasn't scary enough.
Ken Paxton, Attorney General Paxton's lawsuit, comes at this censorship scheme from that angle.
And then, as another example, you see a type of lawsuit like Missouri versus Biden, right?
Which originally started in the Louisiana federal court system, made its way up to circuit courts and whatnot.
There, you're seeing allegations concerning government leaning on, heavily, heavily coercing the big tech giants, your Facebooks and whatnot, into censorship.
Our case, and, you know, it evolved and it evolved and it evolved for, yeah, Mike, probably a year, year and a half we've been at this.
You've been right there with us.
um we have put together we believe first of its kind we believe everything the entire industry sensor complex the entire problem which you know the 10 000 foot overview of our lawsuit and then i'll kick it to jason and back to mike it goes like this government Doesn't like a viewpoint.
Doesn't like an opinion.
Doesn't like writing on in Webseed, for example, talking about non-vax methods of Treating COVID, for example.
They don't like that.
So what does government do when they don't like a voice and they may not like a Republican voice?
They may not like a Catholic voice.
Whatever.
They then, as we've discovered and we've alleged, And we'll know more as this censorship scheme is unraveled.
Government enlists the services of censorship companies like NewsGuard out of New York City.
I'm showing a chart interlinking these.
Yeah, go ahead.
NewsGuard out of New York City, ISD out of England, GDI out of England.
And the government, Mike, funds these companies.
You're talking upwards of a million dollar grants here and there from the DOD, the DOS, to your companies like ISD and whatnot.
I may have that flipped.
It's all outlined in our case, who funded who and when.
Okay, so what happens is government, when there's a disfavored viewpoint out there, a disfavored voice out there, they enlist the services and they, in fact, fund your newsguards, your ISDs, your GDIs.
Again, ISD and GDI being out of England.
Okay?
These companies then generate what's called blacklists or whitelists or nutrition labels of media outlets such as Brighteon.
Webseed, Subset, Natural News, et cetera, et cetera.
These blacklists will label you, Mike.
They will label your company untrustworthy, unreliable, risky, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
That is the tool in our lawsuit.
We call that the censorship tool.
Government then takes to the censorship instruments.
Big tech.
Leans on big tech heavily.
Facebook, Google, Twitter.
Says, you know what?
You deleted.
You shadow banned.
You ghosted.
You eliminated these people.
Let's take it the distance.
Let's get them completely censored.
And here's your substantiation.
Here's your purported justification for the censorship.
The news guard blacklist.
The ISD nutrition label.
Our case is unique in that it ties it all together.
It is the entire industry censorship complex wrapped into one.
So just to be clear, part of what's going on is that the United States federal government is using essentially taxpayer funds to fund, in some cases, overseas organizations to engage in negative reputation rating schemes that are then used overseas organizations to engage in negative reputation rating schemes that are then used by big tech to decide who to de-platform and who to censor and blacklist or to smear
In other words, it sounds like the United States government is laundering censorship through proxy organizations overseas.
Is that an accurate description?
Nailed it.
All right.
So let's bring in Jason on this.
You heard what Jeff just said.
I mean, obviously, Jason, you're very familiar with this case because of your expert consultation on all of this.
What would you add to that description that is highly relevant, pivotal, and even, I would say, historic?
Because there's more that has been brought into this complaint than anything I've seen in any other lawsuit.
So go ahead and continue with that thought, Jason.
Thank you, Mike.
I think that the biggest thing is that people need to understand this is happening.
The United States is targeting free speech in America on the Internet.
This was not an accidental thing.
This was pre-planned.
And what I mean by that is that some people may have at some point watched an interview between Mike Benz and Tucker Carlson.
And he talked about some very complex things and a lot of, you know, abbreviated agencies and organizations and so forth.
And it gets very, very complicated, right?
Because as you know, as a consultant on this, I did a lot of the research on this.
And I had to fully understand the inner workings of what happened, how it happened, why it happened, and who it happened to.
If we're going to simplify this, and I'm going to simplify this for your audience so that they understand exactly the magnitude of what we have here.
It was in Obama's day.
They signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act.
That created what was called the Global Engagement Center, the GEC. Now, the GEC, its purpose and goal was to combat foreign disinformation.
Now, let me say that again, foreign disinformation, not domestic disinformation, foreign.
Now, that was its job and its charter, and that was what the funds were supposed to go for.
Now, what happened was, is that the GEC then turned it inward.
And what they did was they, at first, and this is just one aspect of the case, they ran competitions, grant competitions, and they were looking for technologies to sensor better, faster, and more easily.
Now, what they did was that these companies, NewsGuard and DisInfoCloud and many others, they created technologies to censor speech.
Now, these are the tools.
This is what Jeff Graber was talking about, the tools that the United States funded.
They gave grants to these companies, like NewsGuard, and these companies then took those tools, which were supposed to be for.gov and.mil sites, and they opened them up to domestic Social media companies.
So now, these social media companies have the tools and technologies that the United States funded to censor at the hands of big tech.
And they did.
Not only as if that was not already bad enough, probably the most egregious thing that I can even imagine is that the United States is not only...
Funding domestic NGOs, non-government organizations like NewsGuard and so forth, they're funding foreign agencies like the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, the ISD, or the GDI, the Global Disinformation Index.
I mean, think about it.
Global Disinformation Index.
I mean, it may as well just call it the blacklist.
Well, yeah, yeah, exactly.
But as you're saying this, it strikes me that this is exactly the way that the intelligence communities in the deep state attacked Trump.
They funded foreign groups to fabricate a Trump dossier, which was used to smear Trump and even to impeach Trump.
By the way, the reason I'm even mentioning Trump is because part of the reason that we were targeted for deplatforming, I believe, is because of our support of Donald J. Trump in the 2016 and 2020 elections.
But one thing I want you to answer, and then we'll turn it back over to Jeff, is that it's important that...
Correct.
the United States government.
This isn't just some nebulous thing, we were caught in some big thing.
They specifically named us and in one way or another said, "Take these people down, us." And Big Tech complied, correct?
That Natural News, Brighteon, your companies were specifically named by these companies.
In fact, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue did two massive government-funded reports.
The United States...
They funded that, and they did massive hit-piece reports about how your disinformation, but we all know, those of us that are out there, recognize now that misinformation is real information that they don't want you to have.
That's right.
And that, unfortunately, is what our government is now funding, is our censorship.
It's egregious, and you were, in fact, named.
So let's go to Jeff on this.
So talk about the legal standing issue here, since we are specifically named in various ways, various documents, and so on.
As an attorney, do you think that it's going to be more difficult for big tech entities and government entities to try to dismiss this case than otherwise it would be?
Because a lot of groups that filed lawsuits were not specifically named.
We have been specifically named.
Is that really pivotal here, Jeff?
I mean, Mike, God willing, we stay away from a corrupt judge, a corrupt bench.
I'm not joking, regrettably.
God willing, we stay away from a corrupt judicial situation.
I feel really, really, really good about your case.
The harm is point blank because of what you said there, Mike.
I mean, you know, this is not a situation where I'm not talking down on these efforts, but this is not like a Ken Paxton situation where he's joining a lawsuit to protect the sovereignty of Texas and Texas statutes involving social media and stuff.
This is not a situation where people are just trying to go preserve constitutional rights.
It is all of that.
But you were specifically harmed.
I mean, these reports are cited right in our complaint.
They meant to destroy you.
Your name was specifically listed.
I believe Jason's more of the factual guru.
I believe the listings spiraled out of the Twitter discoveries in Missouri v.
Biden.
That's right.
I think.
I think that's at least where it started.
So, yeah, I mean, we learned of this under a year ago, right?
Yeah.
And as Jason said, you are specifically listed.
I feel really, really good about the lawsuit sticking around.
Now, of course, I'll be real quick because this might bore the viewer.
Of course, all the defendants will take a shot at dismissal.
And it's going to be slow at the start because we got to serve some of the foreign entities in England.
But yeah, Mike, get through that dismissal stage.
And this would be a very scary proposition, I would think.
For all of the defendants to air the dirty laundry and discovery.
See, I'm glad you brought that up, Jeff, because this is absolutely critical.
I want our audience to understand our commitment to this process.
And I have to thank our audience and our supporters because without their financial support of us over all these years, we would not have been able to even fund your efforts to put this together and to file this.
This is not an inexpensive operation in order to pursue this.
The ongoing litigation costs can be quite substantial.
Just as we benefited from the Missouri vs.
Biden case.
So we have to thank, I believe it's A.G. Schmidt in Missouri who filed that case.
I believe that's who he is.
But the parties behind that case were able to provide us with evidence that helps strengthen our case.
In the same way, our case contains strategies and especially through discovery, as we get to discovery and we compel discovery, and correct me if I'm wrong because you're the attorney here, but as we compel discovery from these named parties, but as we compel discovery from these named parties, we will no doubt uncover an extraordinary amount of additional information that can be used by other people who were harmed and blacklisted and had their reputation smeared by this censor.
industrial complex.
Is that accurate, Jeff?
Spot on.
It takes a village, Mike.
It takes a village.
You know, Jason and I, not tooting horns, we were the pioneers.
We were the trailblazers, unquestionably, in this arena six to seven years ago.
And you talk about like generations, right?
It's not a generation, but one generation benefiting from Proceeding generation and so on and so forth.
I mean, you look at some of the big cases, like the Henderson case out of the Fourth Circuit, citing to a Professor Dan Doob treatise, verbatim.
And Dan Doob, his treatise, his law review is straight out of our Jason Fick filings.
Right.
And it's just amazing.
You know, you have to be bold.
Someone has to take a step.
And if you don't, this is...
I put this up there as one of the probably top three problems facing this country, facing this world.
You're talking about bedrocks of the United States Constitution on the line here, our children.
It is scary, scary stuff.
And it takes brave people, Mike, like you, like Jason Fick, to make the first steps.
And you know what?
Yeah.
Yeah, Jason and I have had a very long, expensive, tough go at things, but others have benefited from us.
Just as Mikey was saying, we've benefited in part from the Missouri v.
Biden case.
So everybody out there has to stand up.
Stand up.
Absolutely.
And I want to bring Jason in because, Jason, you have endured for many years a court system.
This is my opinion, a court system that did not understand what the language of Section 230 even said.
And by the way, our case goes way beyond just two thirds.
This is not simply a 230 Section 230 case.
It's way beyond that.
However, you said earlier that you believe you are probably one of one of the people who's the most informed, if not the most informed, about what 230 actually says, what it means and how it is properly interpreted.
But do you feel like, with this case, Jason, that this is the breakthrough, or could be the breakthrough that you've been waiting for, for the courts to finally see the light of this runaway censorship complex?
Well, Mike, you've got a good point there.
It depends on how you consider the breakthrough.
I knew that when I was fighting my case and fighting over Section 230, the issue is that the courts have not applied as written, as intended by Congress, or even constitutionally.
We've been fighting to fix that.
But the problem is much, much larger.
Obviously, as many of you know, I'm also the founder of the Social Media Freedom Foundation.
And the point is that our foundation is...
Our purpose is essentially to ensure that these freedoms exist even on the internet.
Our constitutional rights don't stop at the keyboard.
That's just not how it works.
So this problem that we have with social media, I knew for years, I've known it was deeper than just big tech.
But one of the things – and I would think that this is kind of – this ties in with why this case is so different than every other case.
We're bringing up your website, Social Media Freedom Foundation there.
Thank you, Mike.
Okay.
So essentially, if you sue Facebook and you say that they're violating your constitutional rights because they're restraining your liberties and your property, right – They say, well, they're not violating your First Amendment rights because they're not a government organization.
They point this way.
And then if you sue the government and you say, well, you guys in the government are telling big tech what to do, and they say, well, big tech's a private entity, and they point this way.
Now they're pointing at each other.
The problem is that if you sue big tech, they blame the government, and the government blames big tech.
They can't do that here because they're all involved.
We have the money.
That's all we did.
We followed the money here.
So although we're prepared for a Section 230 case, we'd welcome that.
Go ahead, Facebook, Google X, because we're prepared for that.
We've been dealing with that one for six years.
We know exactly what it protects and what it doesn't protect.
And by the way, although my case is yet to actually make it through because we have yet to have a court actually do their job, the reality is if you look at Dan Gard versus Instagram, we've been right all along, and the courts are finally coming around to it.
So we don't see this being a Section 230 case.
What this really is, this is your First Amendment on the Internet on the line.
That is what this case represents.
If we can beat this, we can stop it.
This is critical.
We are fighting for everybody's right to speak freely.
This is what I want to get across to the audience here.
The reason we are doing this, and Jason and Jeff, we've all had private discussions about whether we should even proceed with this case.
Back and forth, looking at the evidence, looking at the cost, looking at even just the energy cost.
The reason we are pursuing this is to fight for your right to speak, to fight for your freedoms, to set a precedent that the government cannot launder censorship through these third-party companies to influence big tech, to collude with big tech, to blacklist people just because they don't like what they're saying.
And this new language that we've heard in the last couple of years of, oh, disinformation and misinformation, these are just code words for blacklists.
That's all it is.
And how many times have we found out that what one government said was misinformation, such as, oh, Hunter Biden's laptop was a Russia collusion hoax.
Well, then, you know, a few years later, oh, guess what?
It's all confirmed.
It was all real the whole time.
But we were just, you know, deceiving you.
So that's what this is about, folks.
We are fighting to take this all the way to the final decision to set a precedent to defend the liberty of freedom of speech for all Americans.
That is exactly it.
There's two elements to this.
There's a financial element with the private companies because they've damaged you.
But there is also a declaratory element, which is to stop the government, is to declare this unconstitutional.
Because when the United States is facilitating censorship with these private companies, I mean, think about this.
And this is one of those.
Just think about this in concept.
They're saying they're paying companies to essentially influence the restraint of our liberties and then also offering them protection when they do so.
So not only is the government paying for it, influencing it, they're also protecting them from, guess who?
Us.
That's pretty convenient, isn't it?
Yeah, exactly right.
And they're using our own taxpayer money weaponized against us.
Now, I want to bring Jeff back here to answer this question.
In our lawsuit, in our complaint, we are naming Twitter now X.
A lot of people mistakenly believe that Elon Musk is a champion of free speech.
Well, we have on numerous occasions requested through Twitter's legal team to stop censoring us, to stop censoring URLs to brighteon.com, which they have been blacklisting for years, and also to stop shadowbanning my own account, which is HealthRanger on X and Twitter.
Now, Elon Musk, to his credit, he did, or someone under him, did reinstate on a limited basis the Health Ranger account, but it is shadow banned, I'm estimating 99% shadow banned.
So it's really just, they sort of throw you a bone, oh, you're back, but no one can really see you.
And as the Twitter, I forgot the position there, Twitter principal said, well, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of reach.
We can make sure no one can reach you.
So, Jeff, what do you say about Twitter and why Twitter is named in this complaint?
Well, we always sensed over the past year or so where we've been prepping, and you're right, Mike, when we were trying to correspond with these social media giants and either getting poo-pooed off or ignored entirely.
I mean, we always suspected that Twitter was no different, right?
But, you know, we kind of, our team I'm talking about, you know, we had that in the back of our head.
We kind of took our pedal off of the metal a little bit there because it did seem like Mr. Musk was taking some steps in the right direction.
You're right, Mikan.
In a public forum, I'm not going to get into too much what Twitter has done in whole or in part so far by way of resolution, but there's a little bit of resolution, albeit token resolution, a sham, basically.
But Jason and I, you know, during one of our late nights, either him at his house churning away or me at my house churning away, we started to discover much more explicit data out there, crying out for the naming of Twitter as it concerns the overarching censorship scheme.
For example, Jason, you know, hats off to Jason and his late night research.
He found, I don't want to call it buried, maybe he can speak a little more to this, but he found a video, or at least the audio segment of a video clip, an interview of Mr.
Musk.
And Mr.
Musk is point-blank admitting to the censorship, and going so far as to saying that the most nefarious of them all, at least in his view, was GEC, which is a sub-agency of the State Department.
And Mr.
Musk is admitting in this audio clip that the government was strong-arming Twitter into eradicating a quarter million accounts just like that.
No real reason, just we're the government, we say so.
And Mr.
Musk goes on to say that they obliged.
And the timing of what Mr.
Musk was speaking of was really aligning with us.
And the overall industry censorship scheme.
So we felt compelled, we felt obliged to bring Twitter in.
There was another avenue whereby we may have let low discovery unfold and bring Twitter in vis-a-vis amendment, but the pre-suited evidence just became too glaring.
And Twitter's lack of desire to do right by you just continued to Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
Twitter's a defendant.
And it's not like Elon Musk doesn't know who we are.
His new building in Austin is not far from where I am right now in this studio, by the way.
I mean, Elon Musk is very much aware of who we are.
And the influence, the organic influence that we should have had, has been stifled and suffocated deliberately by the actions of these companies.
And one more question, Jeff, before we go back to Jason, can you enumerate what remedies are we demanding in this complaint?
I mean, obviously there's a financial harm that's being enumerated, but what are we asking for?
We're asking for the censorship plaguing America to stop.
Vis-a-vis declaratory efforts.
And we're asking for Brighteon and Webseed to be made whole based on the economic harm sustained as a result of the censorship scheme, as very broadly put.
The two bodies of relief are broken out into 10 or 12 causes of action.
We've got constitutional-based causes of action concerning the First Amendment, namely.
We've got statutory causes of action derived from Texas Code concerning social media company conduct, what's right, what's wrong.
We have equitable causes of action.
We have court Causes of action, such as tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, business relations, and not only did big tech's crushing of you and your companies might harm you in the past, it's harming your relationships and your business opportunities moving forward.
So yeah, two pools of relief.
Declaratory action?
Stop!
The Constitution means something.
And it better stop quick.
And make Mike and his companies right for the damages they've sustained.
Broken across maybe 12 causes of action of every type of equitable, legal, statutory, constitutional.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you for that answer.
And again, this complaint will be public, obviously, as it's filed.
And anybody can read this.
And we even hope that this complaint can, in many ways, serve as a template for other legal teams.
If they have similar causes of action and similar circumstances, then they may be able to benefit from this.
And I want to go back to Jason.
So you have your own lawsuit has been going on against Facebook for many years, but things have changed dramatically since the very first day that you filed that original lawsuit in the sense that, and I know you'll remember this, but when you filed that, most people believed that censorship was not happening.
Just the idea of censorship was a, quote, conspiracy theory.
Can you speak to how much that has changed now to where it's common knowledge that the government is engaged in suppressing voices that it does not like and what you think that means in terms of, for example, the general knowledge of prospective jurors or judges or even opposing legal teams in this process?
What are your thoughts on that, Jason?
We were crazy, Jason.
We were crazy!
We were.
We were definitely crazy.
So, Let me give you a little bit of background so that people understand exactly how far back I go.
I got into Facebook back in 2010, and by 2012, the censorship issue was coming.
Now, back then, it didn't have to do with ideology or politics.
It really had to do with business, right?
Which is the general theme of this entire lawsuit.
It's an anti-competitive animus, right?
Meaning a motive or intent.
And unfortunately, what has occurred over time is that, now we're talking about this is 2012, 2013, I realized there was a real big problem.
And I pioneered, I mean, sometimes my friends joke I'm like the OG of memes, right?
We used to do, you know, when people talk about their 10, you know, or 15,000, you know, likes, I mean, I've got posts with 68 million back in the day.
We had full reach.
And actually, even to your point, As you were saying, freedom of speech is not freedom of reach.
Well, let me explain that and unpack that a little bit because that's just a talking point.
Let me explain exactly how that actually works and how the courts are now catching up.
The point is this.
The reach is distribution.
Distribution, right, is deciding whether to make something available or less available, right?
Well, that's what's called content development.
It's deciding what gets pushed forward.
Well, the courts have recently started to understand that that is not what Section 230C1 protects anymore, right?
And that's what they thought it did in my, you know, six years ago.
We're coming into this and we're saying, I was never treating Facebook as the publisher or speaker of my content.
It's kind of absurd, right?
Because I'm not holding them accountable for my content, but the courts believed that all publication decisions were protected.
All of them.
Meaning you simply couldn't treat them as a publisher.
Well, the courts, and this actually just happened, May 8th, a decision, it's DEIP, D-E-I-P versus, I believe it's Apple, just came out, and the 9th Circuit Court has finally come around, and they've realized that, in fact, if there's a breach of legal duty, Section 230C1 does not apply.
Well, that was what my case was about, anti-competitive animus.
Now, it was business-related, it was financial-related, But if you take that and you evolve that from 2013 on, that's what you're talking about here.
That just got turned into ideological and political censorship.
And because the government, of course, is protecting them, they also got involved.
Now the government is not only protecting them, they're coercing them.
They're paying for this.
And because of that, even how we started this entire interview, you said, well, they're They're ramping up their censorship.
Now why?
In fact, I'm sorry to interrupt, but two points here, and just a note to Jeff, also keep this in mind, we want to talk about where this all goes.
As you just said, Jason, how bad does this get if we don't win?
If we don't stop this, where does this go?
But, Jason, to your point, what you're describing is the fact that the courts are evolving their understanding of what's going on, but it's a multi-year delay, is what it sounds like.
So the government...
They innovate some dark censorship method and they say, let's just do it because we can get away with it.
The courts won't even understand what we're doing for five years.
And that's been true.
But eventually the courts begin to catch up.
And as you just mentioned that decision on May 8th, it seems like we are now arriving at this tipping point where the courts are beginning to understand exactly the depth and the breadth, you could say, of the censorship scheme that the government's carrying out.
Go ahead, Jason.
Well, think about this.
Let's put this in the perspective of immigration.
They're here.
There's no one doing that right now, right?
They're already here.
It's already done.
Now, if the courts are going to take five to six years to catch up, which is where we're at, where we're just trying to get them to understand a very basic principle, which is 230C1 does not protect any conduct at all.
Six years to get that basic premise out there.
And we have congressional members saying it.
We have a Supreme Court justice saying essentially the same thing.
But the courts are not making this concrete law.
Well, think about that.
If they know that this is coming, that ultimately this is going to get repaired, they're racing for the finish line.
They need to essentially stop Donald Trump.
They need to break the country.
They need to get such a grip on the country that there is no fixing it.
That's what they're racing for.
It's the same thing as the globalist agenda as opposed to a nationalist agenda.
We're concerned about our constitutional rights.
The globalists aren't.
The globalists don't want freedoms.
You know, they don't have a constitution globally.
So essentially, the grip that they have on the online, you know, on the internet is, I mean, they're trying to outrun us.
And the reality is, is that if we do not stop them here, I mean, what's going to be going into the Western District of Texas?
This case is so monumental.
Because it will be a situation where this court could stop it, or it could allow it.
And if it allows it, our constitution is done.
And if we lose freedom of speech, when considering that 80% of communications occur on the internet now, and they can be filtered through like four companies...
There's no solving any other problems in the world.
That's right.
I mean, you can't have a democracy, I would argue, without freedom of speech because you can't have debates.
You can't hear both sides of any issue.
And Jason, your knowledge in this area is really impressive, and I'm so thankful that you're dedicated to the long-term fight here because this process could still take many years, and yet it's a fight that is worth it.
Now, I want to bring Jeff back in and ask you, Jeff, Two questions.
Number one, your opinion of what happens, where our society is headed if this censorship complex is not stopped.
And then secondly, just a technical question, is it possible for a judge in this case to issue an injunction against big tech to even temporarily stop censorship during the time that this lawsuit is proceeding?
No.
Oh, absolutely, Mike.
It'll be one of our first moves, most likely, in fact, to go for the preliminary or temporary injunction sooner rather than later.
Because, yeah, Mike, you're spot on there in recognizing that we don't have to necessarily wait a year or two or three for the end of the case for permanent enjoinder to occur.
But you're darn right, we're going to come out of the gates, at least on our end, moving as quickly as we can.
And part of that will involve an effort to secure a temporary or preliminary injunction, injunctive relief.
Now, that kind of segues into the first question.
Where's this all going?
What's this country looking at?
I mean, I'm scared.
I'm scared.
I'm scared.
And I would be absolutely terrified if it weren't for us.
Mike Adams, Jason Fick, Jeff Graber, others out there trying to stop this.
Because this is serious, fundamental stuff at effort.
I'm most scared.
I'm most scared for my three young kids.
I'm most scared for my three young kids and what this looks like.
But I don't think people, you know, for six or seven or eight years now, In my conversations with folks and whatnot, it's just like, I don't think they understand how deep this goes.
I don't think they understand that the issues on the plate in Jason's case and in your case, Mike, are absolutely fundamental to religion, politics, free speech.
Economics, livelihood.
It touches everything in life.
Social media is the modern public square.
So I am very scared to answer your question about where this country is going if this does not stop right now.
And Jason's right.
It's a sprinting match to the extent, Mike, where the people behind this are going to be quite pleased with what already has been accomplished.
elections lost businesses such as yours out of the way and crushed forever.
So there will be a ringing of the bell.
You know, once you ring the bell, you can't unring it.
You can take the bell down, but it's still rang.
And I would add, Jeff, to what you're saying, I'm saying that part of the dark future that's coming if we don't turn this around is that the only voices that will be allowed to have distribution on social media or mainstream tech sites will be those that are completely controlled by and aligned with government narratives, which
I would argue are almost always rooted in deceptions, lies, and trying to convince people to take actions that are counter to their own self-interest.
And I would add that over all the years that I've done podcasts and interviews and our platforms, Brighton and Natural News, we have always consistently acted in good faith to help fellow human beings be more healthy, more healthy, more healthy, more healthy, more healthy, more healthy, more healthy, more healthy, more healthy, more healthy.
more informed, safer, more free, more self-reliant, self-sustaining.
We are good faith operators in this space.
It doesn't mean that I haven't done satire and some profanity from time to time, but I operate in good faith.
I want to live in a world where everybody is better off, and yet the governments that are suppressing our voices are, in my opinion, entities that actually want to harm this world.
They want to reduce liberty.
They want to have people be less healthy, less free.
And thus, we would end up, if we don't defeat this, this is my point, we would end up in a world where the only allowable voices are the voices that are trying to harm the people.
And those who are trying to help the people are completely silenced, because that's what we're seeing in this case.
Your comments, Jeff, and then we'll go back to Jason.
It is that critical.
You did not elaborate.
You did not embellish, nor did I. It is that critical.
Our world...
Our world is hanging on this.
We're not trying to toot our lawsuit's horn.
We're not trying to make anything more out of this than what it deserves.
It is scary, scary stuff.
But thank God for the likes of a Mike Adams and a Jason Fick.
We will fight, America.
We will continue to fight.
This group will continue to fight.
And more of you need to join in.
Thank you.
And we have tremendous support from our customer base, by the way, to allow us to continue in this fight.
So, Jason, your comments on what I just said there and about the potential dark future that we all face if we don't stop this government-sponsored censorship complex.
What are your thoughts on, and also, what this means to the world, the benefits of winning this case?
What would it mean to have freedom of speech actually restored in America, Jason?
Well, I was thinking something along the same lines as what Jeff just said, which is there are not that many people that are willing to stand in the gap.
It's difficult.
You know, the rocks and they're slung at you first.
You know, we're the first ones to get hit.
And, you know, the reason that your sites are under attack by the government is because you stood in the gap, right?
And that is a very difficult thing to do.
And to your credit, You're not here doing this for clout.
I can say that personally because of what I've known for the past year and working with you.
You put your money where your mouth is.
You stood in the gap.
This is the real fight for America.
If we don't do this, we are going to lose it.
And the reason being is because every single problem that can be solved starts with a conversation.
It starts with communication.
And if we cannot communicate freely...
We can't resolve the problem.
And it's an odd time because people talk about the Revolutionary War, and that only took a 2% tax to strike it off.
And nowadays, people aren't standing up.
They're not saying no, that this is not okay.
This is not okay what the government's doing.
I mean, you step back, and your audience should think about it.
Think about this.
The government is taking your tax money to shut you up.
To dupe you, to deceive you, to keep information from you, and the only way to solve problems is if you know the information.
So the magnitude is unbelievable.
I also wanted to make one other point that is a little concerning, and this is something where you start thinking, because I think prospectively, right?
What's going to happen down the road?
How are they doing what they're doing?
Because they're five years in advance.
The stuff that's happening now was already pre-planned, so what's coming next?
Well, think about this for a moment.
The TikTok ban.
That got rammed through in a funding bill, and it was because it had too much opposition.
But everybody says, well, it's foreign adversaries they're worried about.
Well, the GEC was supposed to be working on foreign disinformation.
Exactly.
They're going to turn that inward in no time and start saying that sites like mine, well, they're going to accuse us of whatever, that, oh, you must be working for Putin or some nonsense like that.
Think of it this way.
Our government is now the foreign entity.
Americans are essentially foreign to our own government now because then we become the foreign adversaries because our government really isn't working for America anymore.
And unfortunately, I honestly think that that's really the case, that the government is now working for foreign entities.
It's clearly paying other countries to censor American speech.
I suspect that our government is corrupted with foreign entities.
And then the people that are, you know, the white nationalists No, we're just patriots.
We're the people that care about this country.
That's legitimately all we are, but then we become the foreign adversary all of a sudden.
So if you have a website that is giving out good information, I mean, think about it.
Alex Jones with Infowars.
When is he going to become the foreign adversary?
When is his social media site or something like that going to be shut down by the president?
Because...
He poses a threat.
That's what's going to happen with the TikTok ban.
And clearly, the U.S. supports Ukraine.
The U.S. is funding the entire Ukrainian government.
And Zelensky, whose term has expired as of last week, Zelensky is no longer technically the president of Ukraine.
And yet he canceled all free press in Ukraine and canceled elections.
He is now a de facto military dictator in a country that the U.S. says is a democracy.
So if they apply that same logic to Ukraine, they can apply it domestically.
They can cancel all freedom of press.
They can cancel all elections.
They can declare themselves to be the dictators in charge and then use force and coercion in these schemes that are covered in this complaint in order to continue to enforce that dictatorial authoritarian control.
That's my concern.
I don't even think it's a can.
I think it's a will.
I think they're going to.
I think they're going to do things that are so nefarious, so bad.
And the question is, how far are they going to have to push before somebody pops off?
Before something happens?
Well, let me throw one more question out there, shifting a little bit, but I agree with the basis of what you just said there.
Understand, and Jeff might want to comment on this too, but understand that the censorship weaponization It's a double harm for all those targeted because by censoring and deplatforming your company, they also deprive you of revenues that you would otherwise need in order to fund legal efforts to defend your civil rights and constitutional rights.
So this is absolutely key.
Our companies, Brighteon and Webseed and Natural News, we have been incredibly fortunate and very rare.
It's very rare to be in a situation where you can survive all that blacklisting and still have enough revenues in order to achieve a legal defense of your rights to exist.
But I can't tell you how many other publishers in this space are bankrupt at this point because of the censorship.
Jeff, did you have a comment on that?
Not necessarily, but I can, which is to support that notion.
Jason and I have been approached by many folks, and they've been bled to death.
Death by a thousand paper cuts.
They've been choked out revenue-wise, such that they can't afford to protect their rights.
And big tech absolutely knows it.
Yes.
Big tech absolutely knows the war of attrition.
Suits them.
Choke people out financially.
And then they just can't go to court.
Right, right.
And also when they censor you, you can't defend against the smears and lies.
You can't defend your reputation.
So we found this.
So many false accusations blatantly fiction out of nowhere.
Like it was written by some AI role-playing game or something.
Accusations against myself and our companies that have no basis in fact whatsoever.
But since you're censored, you can't defend against that.
You can't call out the lies, and they know that too.
It's all part of the strategy.
It's a vicious cycle.
It is.
So we're about to wrap this up.
Number one, I just want to say again thank you to both of you gentlemen.
Number one, you've both endured so much over these years, especially Jason with your lawsuit, and they destroyed your business, Jason.
Absolutely destroyed it.
And you, organically, you should have actually been extremely financially wealthy at this point based on the business ideas that you built.
In a meritocracy, you would be a very wealthy individual right now.
If they had not breached their legal duty, Where I was aimed in life, I mean, we were doing $300,000 a month in 2013.
Imagine what that would be today.
It's in the billions.
And they took it all.
Jason was bigger than BuzzFeed.
BuzzFeed had 9.6 million.
I had 12.7 million fans on Facebook.
And they didn't restrict the reach, and that is exactly it.
They've duped the courts into believing that they're allowed to control that reach.
They're not.
That's manipulation.
That's content development.
That's the entire premise of how they became the giants that they are today because the courts never stopped them.
And what they're doing is illegal.
And it has to stop, or we have no chance.
We have no chance because they're going to run everybody into the ground financially, as they did to me, or they're going to run your voice into the ground and they simply silence you across the board.
I mean, can you believe in your lifetime that you would hear a term called depersoning?
Right, right.
Like you're just shut off on the internet?
Now, we talk about that in the lawsuit.
It's a matter of coordination.
Somebody had to coordinate that.
And who do you think did it?
Well, we think we know exactly who did it.
The government.
Because there is a coordination where they attack certain individuals and they take them out everywhere across all platforms.
And the only way that happens is if you have somebody in the league coordinating the whole thing.
Yeah, exactly.
So, again, just to summarize, and we're going to wrap this up, to summarize for our viewers, this is, in my view, and also the views of our attorneys and expert consultant here, this is an historic lawsuit.
We believe that this may be the most important free speech case in the history of the United States of America.
And because of victory in this case, would reestablish and reaffirm the freedom of speech that was enumerated in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which was itself an amendment to the Constitution because the framers were so concerned about government abuse, they came back a few years after the Constitution and wrote out the First Amendment, Second Amendment, and so on.
Right?
We are living in a time when that is all being crushed, but this court case can reaffirm it, it can reestablish America, it can bring us back to our constitutional republic where the concepts of democracy once again function because we can all participate in conversations and debates and criticism of our own governments or other governments around the world.
And that, all those principles are critical pillars To the proper functioning, even the existence of a constitutional republic.
So, last comments.
Let's go to Jeff first.
Is there anything else that you need to add today or comments on what I just said, just to wrap this up?
I would just say this in closing.
The United States Constitution is forever indispensable.
We witnessed What this looks like.
We witnessed this playbook, at least in the history books, emanating out of Germany in the 1930s.
Truly, truly.
Eradicate voice.
Label people as disfavored.
Get them out.
And we see where that took us in the 1940s.
Scary stuff.
Our Constitution means something.
It's what makes us incredible.
We must protect it.
And again, thank you, Mike.
And thank you, Jason.
It takes brave souls, fellas.
Let's keep up the fight.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you, Jeff.
Jason, your final thoughts for today's interview.
I want to thank you, Mike, and everybody involved in this.
It does take brave people to stand up.
And I know it's a scary proposition to go up against forces this big.
And all I can hope for at this point is that we have brave judges and brave courts because this is a monumental fight.
Arguably, I would say that it's probably the most important case in America, period.
Because if we don't have free speech on the Internet, we're not going to be able to resolve anything else.
And at that point, you know, everybody wants to avoid any kind of, you know, Any fighting.
We don't want to do that.
We want to use our words.
But when our words are no longer usable, you have to result in other things.
We don't want that.
We need the government to back off.
Stop messing with big tech.
Big tech needs to stop suppressing speech.
And even like we talked about with Elon and X, we're amenable to a discussion.
Let's get this resolved.
We don't foresee the others, Google and Facebook, backing off, but we're amenable to a discussion.
Let's back this down a bit.
Let's stop suppressing people.
You shouldn't be ramping up into an election to suppress more information.
Everybody should be able to have a voice, no matter what it is.
That's just the way that we are in this country, is we should have our voice.
So again, I want to thank you and everybody there, and I want to just employ your audience.
Go out.
Buy their products.
Help them out.
Because they've got a big fight ahead of them.
They've got good counsel.
And my help, I'm in there.
We're in there fully.
We're going to fight this through.
And we're going to do the best job we possibly can.
But like you said, it is an expensive fight.
It is difficult.
I mean, the amount of work that's already gone into it has been monumentous.
Yeah.
Keep up the fight.
And thank you, Mike.
Thank you for having us involved in this.
And we hope to someday be celebrating and saying, you know, we stopped this from happening.
History in the making here, folks.
This is what it looks like, and these are the gentlemen who are going to help us achieve that.
So thank you both for joining me today.
It's been a pleasure, and I really appreciate you joining me in this time.
And for all of you watching, of course, we continue to ask for your support.
At healthrangerstore.com.
As you support us financially, we are able to continue to fight for your freedom.
And we're also simultaneously building the infrastructure of human freedom with our various projects, such as brighteon.io, which is the free speech decentralized online platform that has no central servers and therefore cannot be seized and cannot be taken down.
And it's blockchain driven.
And we also have an AI project called brighteon.ai, which is free, non-commercial.
Freely downloadable, and we are building the world's biggest and best trained AI large language model that's trained on reality-based information, which includes hundreds of thousands of articles from naturalnews.com and other.
You wouldn't believe the donations we have coming in to us from groups around the world that are donating, in some cases, thousands of PDFs and thousands of hours, in one case, over 10,000 hours of audio to be used as training for these models.
So we're doing what big tech refuses to do.
We're actually putting out free tools that you can use without surveillance and without censorship.
And we're also fighting big tech's existing censorship.
But we need your help in all of this.
So continue to support us at healthrangerstore.com and also share this interview everywhere.
And for all of you watching who are maybe new to this channel, Understand that we have both the funding, the revenue streams, and the determination to see this through all the way to the Supreme Court.
If that's what it takes, as long as it takes, we will see this through because we are here to fight through the rule of law, not violently, but through the rule of law, through the court system, to fight for the free speech rights of all Americans.
And that's something worth fighting for.
So God bless you all.
God bless America.
I'm Mike Adams, the health ranger, the founder of brighttown.com, naturalnews.com, and other projects.
Take care.
I've got some great news.
We have some exciting new products at healthrangerstore.com and some old favorites that are back in stock.
Let me show you what we have.
If you'll go to the camera here on the desk, we've got quercetin that is now available, plant-based quercetin.
Which is extremely popular right now.
Check it out, healthrangerstore.com.
We've got pine needle nasal spray, which is made from the loblolly pine that is very high naturally in shikimic acid.
And I actually harvested those pine needles myself, by the way.
So that's a really exciting project.
I won't travel without it, by the way.
Even public speaking, I always use that to rinse my nasal passages before going out in public.
We've also got back in stock now laundry detergent powder.
And remember that we don't use any toxic fragrance chemicals of any kind.
We don't use any harmful ingredients that harm aquatic species or the environment or the waterways or anything like that.
If you want laundry detergent that's clean for you and clean for the environment, then you can get that at healthrangerstore.com.
Blueberry vanilla pancake mix powder that is a fan favorite.
We keep running out of that.
We've got that back in stock.
We have a seven-seed snack mix now that has this combination of really high-nutrition seeds.
This is going to be a very popular product.
You can add it to cereals.
You can add it to mixes.
You can eat it as a snack all by itself.
I know people are going to love that one.
We've also got chaga mushroom powder back in stock there as well, and a few other products.
Check out our website, healthrangerstore.com, and there you'll see the specials that we have.
You'll see right there is the Memorial Day specials that we have.
We've got lots of things back in stock.
We're able to offer discounts from time to time, and new products are coming in regularly.
And, of course, every purchase that you make at healthrangerstore.com helps support our infrastructure, what we're building for you, the platforms for freedom of speech like Brighteon.io, the free downloadable AI language model tools at Brighteon.ai the free downloadable AI language model tools at Brighteon.ai helps fund this platform, the free speech video platform.
Brighteon.com, as well as NaturalNews.com and other efforts that we're undertaking.
Everything that we do is designed to support the infrastructure of human freedom.
the infrastructure of human freedom.
We want you to be healthy.
We want you to be healthy.
We want you to be well-off.
We want you to be well off.
We want you to live with abundance and inspiration and with a sense of optimism about the future, which I know is difficult these days given all the insanity in the world, but one of the things that helps you the most is staying healthy.
We want you to live with abundance and inspiration and with a sense of optimism about the future, which I know is difficult these days given all the insanity in the world.
But one of the things that helps you the most is staying healthy.
And that's why we do laboratory testing, extensive testing, for all the products that we sell at our store.
And that's why we choose clean, organic, certified organic, raw materials, ingredients for all of our products.
So again, shop at healthrangerstore.com.
You'll be doing yourself, your health, a favor while also financially supporting us so that we can continue to build the infrastructure of human freedom that benefits you and everyone around you.
And thank you so much for your support.
I'm Mike Adams, the founder of Brighteon and the Health Ranger Store.
And God bless you all.
Have a wonderful day.
Take care.
A global reset is coming.
And that's why I've recorded a new nine-hour audiobook.
It's called The Global Reset Survival Guide.
You can download it for free by subscribing to the naturalnews.com email newsletter, which is also free.
I'll describe how the monetary system fails.
I also cover emergency medicine and first aid and what to buy to help you avoid infections.
So download this guide.
It's free.
▲
Export Selection