Jump to content

Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arsene10 (talk | contribs) at 20:49, 11 October 2024. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

History of censorship

We already had this conversation a few sections above this one. Black Kite (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding the comment above regarding the Biden-Harris administration's pressure for Meta platforms to censor COVID-19 misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation, Mr. Kennedy won an injunction in the lawsuit Kennedy v Biden, which was consolidated from Missouri v Biden (https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/KennedyetalvBidenetalDocketNo323cv00381WDLaMar242023CourtDocket/2?doc_id=X422CAQ6RJ08TM8O5NHN0VA34OV).
"The White House defendants, the Surgeon General defendants, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defendants, the Federal Bureau of Investigation defendants, and the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency defendants likely violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, Doughty said.
Kennedy’s class action complaint, brought with health care professional Connie Sampognaro and Kennedy’s nonprofit, Children’s Health Defense, alleges that the federal government, beginning in early 2020, began a campaign to induce Facebook, Google (YouTube), and X, formerly known as Twitter, to censor constitutionally protected speech.
Specifically, Kennedy said, the government suppressed “facts and opinions about the COVID vaccines that might lead people to become ‘hesitant’ about COVID vaccine mandates.”
Kennedy has sufficiently shown that these defendants “jointly participated in the actions of the social media” platforms “by “‘insinuating’ themselves into the social-media companies’ private affairs and blurring the line between public and private action,” Doughty said.
And Kennedy and his co-plaintiffs “demonstrated a likely ‘injury from the impending action, that the injury is imminent, and that money damages would not fully repair the harm,’” he said, citing a 1986 Fifth Circuit ruling.
Doughty also granted an injunction in the Missouri case in July 2023, which is now before the Supreme Court. The high court on Oct. 20, 2023, granted a writ of certiorari and stayed the preliminary injunction until the court issues a ruling.
The Missouri case was consolidated with the Kennedy case in the Western District of Louisiana in July 2023. The Supreme Court deniedKennedy’s motion to intervene on Dec. 11, 2023.
The injunction bars the named federal defendants from taking “actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech.”
Doughty denied the injunction as to the US Department of State defendants, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases defendants, the US Food and Drug Administration, the US Department of the Treasury, the US Election Assistance Commission, and the US Department of Commerce, along with their directors and/or employees." https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/rfk-jr-wins-deferred-injunction-in-anti-vax-social-media-suit
As of August 20, 2024, the injunction still stands: https://casetext.com/case/kennedy-v-biden-4 This means that per the laws of the United States, the White House defendants, the Surgeon General defendants, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defendants, the Federal Bureau of Investigation defendants, and the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency defendants likely violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
I appreciate your time and attention in this matter. If you choose not to seriously take into consideration the comments above as well as my comments which have cited sources from reputable locations, then you are censoring information from the public.

Maraharcher804 (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above was closed because the consensus was against the inclusion of this information. I doubt you are going to achieve a different result here. I'd advise you to google the definition of the word "censorship", because you're misusing it; making such accusations is not conducive to constructive discussion on Wikipedia, and doing so pre-emptively in a "if you don't agree to my demands, you are automatically guilty of censorship" manner is especially unconstructive, and actually makes it less likely people will engage with you seriously in a manner that might result in some of what you want being done. AntiDionysius (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello:
I appreciate your response and for your explanation. Would this section be better entitled as "Class action lawsuit" as opposed to "censorship"?
Could you also explain the consensus behind the inclusion of this information?
Thank you for your time. Maraharcher804 (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
against the inclusion of this information* Maraharcher804 (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant other suit is now called Murthy v. Missouri. Kennedy et. al. did not succeed in joining that other case. And Kennedy et al. were on hold until this summer when the Supreme Court ended that other suit. All the detailed legal blow-by-blow description above is irrelevant to this article.
To my mind, since Murthy v. Missouri seems to be a notable legal action, it might be that RFK Jr. et al. v. Biden is a notable legal affair. Which could properly be mentioned in this article. Perhaps a paragraph here saying that Childrens Health Defense and Kennedy (and the other person) filed a suit, briefly describe the allegation of censorship, and then say the case is similar to Murthy v. Missouri (wikilinked). If there is an injunction in effect that could be mentioned, with an as-of date.
Winning the case would be like Nazi Party v. Skokie. The Nazis mostly won their free speech case, but that did not vindicate Nazism. A finding that the government censored Kennedy and CHD bushwa would be noteworthy, but that wouldn't vindicate their bushwa.
Secondary sources would be needed. All those links to court documents don't cut it as sources.
(Edited from my original response, after I learned that Murthy v. Missouri had been decided.) -- M.boli (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"We already had this conversation a few sections above this one. " Where, exactly? Not visible from section titles. RememberOrwell (talk) 07:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three sections above, under "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 September 2024". The editor is reformulating his claims but the purpose is the same. Black Kite (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 16 September 2024

Description of suggested change: Please link "ethyl mercury" to Ethylmercury#Toxicity

Diff:

−
ORIGINAL_TEXT
+
CHANGED_TEXT

RememberOrwell (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.
I would personally be against it; I think it's suggestive linking that would credence to RFK Jr's unfounded claims. --AntiDionysius (talk) 10:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would linking an ion to its Wikipedia page give credence to his claims. AstralNomad (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the proposed link is to the "toxicity" subsection, and without further context the obvious implication is that this ingredient as used in vaccines is a toxin. AntiDionysius (talk) 09:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a toxin, according to the EPA. And that is their area of expertise. There have been no animal studies according to the CDC (https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp46.pdf). Its toxicity is the reason it's used as a preservative and fungicide. Thimerosal's LD50 is 75 mg/kg (Rat). It's killed thousands - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14450973/ ... Is it against an unwritten 0th law to allow content that could cause vaccine hesitancy? Let's not use ableist language to cast aspersions; "using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing", is explicitly forbidden by policy. Chisso Corp attitudes are not encyclopedic. RememberOrwell (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would call vaccine safety and human health CDC's area of expertise, and they've said in no uncertain terms that it's safe. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not used anymore, and Kennedy says it is. That is the unfounded claim. And "toxic" is not a contradiction to "safe" because the dose makes the poison (Paracelsus). --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's link water to drowning or asphyxiation everywhere we see it. And let us not forget that Dihydrogen Monoxide has been found in a variety of cancers. (Sarcasm) -- M.boli (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it can't be a toxin, as mercury is used in homeopathy (Mercurius solubilis) /s
Besides, Thiomersal is ethyl(2-mercaptobenzoato-(2-)-O,S) mercurate(1-) sodium, not the component of your 60 years old paper (ethyl mercury toluene sulphonanilide ). --Julius Senegal (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2024

This page is spreading false information by accusing Robert F Kennedy of spreading false information. You have no substantial evidence to make a claim that he is spreading lies. 173.198.127.23 (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Discussed extensively previously. — Czello (music) 14:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Misinformation" adjective should be removed

the vaccine is a topic of contention. Sources cited n this entry tend to lean toward pro vaccine and politically left opinion. To blanket state that he is a proponent of "misinformation" is biased opinion, not fact. He and his family are vaccinated. The fact that he has stated that all vaccines should be carefully tested or that he questions potential vaccine risks is not misinformation. It's a difference of opinion. Shame on you Wikipedia for allowing real misinformation from your contributors. This is not supposed to be a forum to slander people based on political bias. Bkintz (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read the FAQ at the top of this Talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Vaccine is false

RFK Jr told Congress that he has followed the vaccine schedule and is fully vaccinated with the exception of Covid which he believes needs to be held to the same scrutiny that the other vaccines are held to. It is extremely misleading to say he is anti-vax when he and his family have had their vaccinations. 24.40.228.32 (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read the FAQ at the top of this Talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous poster is correct. You are simply wrong, Hob Gadling. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuQ8Bv330C0 — Foxtrot1296 (talk) 06:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Things like this have been discussed a thousand times before; please see the FAQ. — Czello (music) 07:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New York bar exam

The article states that he resigned from the New York DA's office in July 1983, after failing the bar. This is somewhat inaccurate as he had actually walked out on his second try (in February 1983), rather than failing it.

It could also be worth mentioning that he passed the written portion later in 1983, but apparently failed the character and witness portion.

See below for a mention of his February 1983 walkout:

https://time.com/archive/6882941/crash-landing-for-bobby/

And his passing of the written portion later in 1983:

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1985/06/04/Robert-Kennedy-Jr-admitted-to-New-York-State-Bar/1422486705600/

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.&oldid=1250676763"