SCOTUS to consider injunction request in Stockton v. Ferguson which would halt probe into doctors' COVID-19 criticisms

By bellecarter // 2024-12-17

Mastodon

Parler

Gab

Copy

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide whether doctors can face sanctions for expressing dissenting opinions on COVID-19 policies, potentially reshaping free speech protections for medical professionals.
A group of doctors, along with former NBA player John Stockton and supporters like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have requested an injunction to halt the Washington Medical Commission's investigation into doctors who have spoken out against government-mandated COVID-19 measures.
The case centers on whether states can regulate doctors' public speech, which is in opposition to a 2018 Supreme Court ruling that says states cannot regulate licensed professionals' speech in this manner.
Dr. Thomas Siler and Dr. Richard Eggleston are at the center of the case, accused of disseminating "misinformation" through articles downplaying COVID-19 severity and criticizing vaccines.
The ruling will impact not only the doctors involved but also set a precedent for the balance between public health policies and the freedom of medical professionals to express alternative views, touching on the core American values of free speech and independent thinking.

In a battle that pits the First Amendment against state medical regulations, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to decide whether doctors in Washington State can face sanctions for expressing dissenting opinions on Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) policies. The case, Stockton v. Ferguson, has attracted high-profile attention and has the potential to reshape the landscape of free speech protections for medical professionals. The latest twist in this legal drama comes as the SCOTUS is set to consider a request for an injunction to halt the Washington Medical Commission's investigation into several doctors who have spoken out against government-mandated COVID-19 measures. The original request was rejected by Justice Elena Kagan on Nov. 20, but the plaintiffs quickly refiled the application directly to Justice Clarence Thomas, prompting a private judicial conference scheduled for Jan. 10, 2025. At the heart of the matter is a fundamental question: Can doctors be censored by the state for expressing opinions that run counter to official medical orthodoxy? The plaintiffs, led by former basketball star John Stockton, a group of doctors and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Children's Health Defense (CHD), argue that the doctors' First Amendment rights are being violated. The Washington Medical Commission, however, maintains that the doctors' public statements are "potentially dangerous misinformation" that the state has the right to regulate. This interpretation is at odds with a 2018 Supreme Court ruling that asserts that states do not have the authority to regulate speech by licensed professionals in this manner. The case centers around Dr. Thomas Siler and Dr. Richard Eggleston, who were accused of disseminating COVID-19 "misinformation" through articles and online posts. Dr. Eggleston, in particular, faced charges of unprofessional conduct in August 2022 for articles that downplayed the severity of COVID-19, criticized vaccines, and endorsed the antiparasitic drug ivermectin as a treatment. The doctors and their supporters argue that their free speech rights are being trampled upon by an overzealous medical commission. This censorship, they contend, has the potential to silence doctors who express alternative views on public health policies, even when those views are based on their professional judgment and experience. The court's decision will not only impact the doctors directly involved in the case but could also set a precedent for the broader question of whether medical boards can regulate the public speech of doctors. If the Supreme Court approves the injunction, it would likely signal a significant shift in the way state medical commissions can handle public criticism of official health policies.

Not just a case about doctors but the value of FREE SPEECH

The implications of this case extend far beyond the specifics of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is a fight over the very core of free speech protections in a profession where the stakes can be life and death. The Washington Attorney General's office, represented by Bob Ferguson, has defended the state's right to investigate doctors for what it deems to be misinformation. But the question remains: Is the state's interest in curbing misinformation more important than the fundamental right to free expression? The case will likely be closely watched not only by medical professionals but also by those interested in the balance between public health policies and personal freedoms. As we wait for the Supreme Court's decision, one thing is clear: the fate of free speech in the medical profession hangs in the balance. This is not just a case about doctors; it's a case about the American values of free speech, critical thinking and the independence of the medical profession. The Supreme Court's decision will have far-reaching implications for the way we think about public health, free speech and the role of medical professionals in a democracy. (Related: CCDH agents threatened health freedom advocates and covid truthers with lawsuits to silence them.) Visit SpeechPolice.news to read related stories. Watch the video below that talks about Biden extending the COVID-19 vaccine liability shield. This video is from the TrendingNews channel on Brighteon.com.

CITIZENS NEWS

Not just a case about doctors but the value of FREE SPEECH

More related stories:

Sources include: