The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) recently filed a Supreme Court brief where it expressed its opposition to the way the Biden regime tackled free speech during the Wuhan virus pandemic.
This medical organization was particularly concerned with censorship dealing with Wuhan virus related information and collusion with Big Tech, which is currently being fleshed out in the Murthy v. Missouri Supreme Court case.
AAPS filed an amicus brief to back the assertion that the Biden regime and some of the leading tech companies illegally worked together to censor Americans’ freedom of speech online.
This medical organization made up of professionals believes that if the censorship during the pandemic goes without legal consequences, more of the same, but this time dealing with different issues, will just continue to happen.
Some of these issues where censorship could occur are in other subjects as vaccine criticism, transgenderism, and abortion. AAPS believes that the stakes are so high in this battle to preserve online speech that any form of failure will result in further infringements on free speech.
By contrast, other organizations such as the American Medical Association (AMA) wrote their own briefs supporting the Biden regime and its dealings with Big Tech. In effect, the AMA said censorship was the right course of action to take due to how the alleged goal of saving lives was at risk owing to online “vaccine misinformation.”
Effectively, organizations such as the AMA believe that the government has a “compelling interest” to engage in censorship. This view is shared by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Physicians, and the American Geriatrics Society.
“It is alarming that any professional organization would argue for censorship as the AMA Amici do in this case,” AAPS told The Epoch Times.
The AAPS document not only took the Biden regime to task, but also criticized the AMA and its allies in this “war of amicus briefs.” It called attention to how the First Amendment extends free speech protections to the criticism of vaccine mandates and vaccines.
“Our national motto is not, ‘In Vaccines We Trust,’” the AAPS declared. It’s not even, “In Government We Trust,” they continued, also noting that “In Big Tech We Trust” is not part of its ethos either.
AAPS’s amicus called on the court to throw out the argument that censorship can be justified on the grounds of a “compelling interest” connected to vaccination.