Wikipedia

Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Latest comment: 4 hours ago by Black Kite in topic History of censorship
Learn more about this page

This article is unnecessarily politically biased

edit
Latest comment: 7 days ago12 comments9 people in discussion

It puts the overbroad, subjective and and inflammatory term "conspiracy theorist" in the first sentence as one of his main titles, and focuses disproportionately on vaccine issues, which are a blip on his life and career. Almost all the prominent information was taken from recent news articles and not from any depth of research. Also, his career section starts with conviction for heroine, which is an odd place to start. This article appears designed to smear the subject's image, or in any case relies on sensationalist tabloid type news articles over historical sources. Caoruktnmsmo (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC) — Caoruktnmsmo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply

The article reflects the coverage found in reliable sources. Zaathras (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
His conspiracy theories about vaccines are not "political". It's just the usual antiscience crackpottery. And it is not a "blip", it was his actual job for several decades. So, not only do the reliable sources back up what the article says, the reliable sources are even correct. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Caoruktnmsmo I agree that starting the section Career with a subsection on Conviction for Heroin Possession is odd. The paragraph on the conviction should be a separate section before Career. Seananony (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Caoruktnmsmo I also agree with what you say about heroine conviction being in the career section. This should be changed. MensaGlobetrotter (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I concur. This Seananony character should be removed and not permitted to edit anything on Wikipedia again to prevent it turning into yet another worthless editorial site. 172.56.169.91 (talk) 04:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@172.56.169.91 I think you're confused, BoN. I have moved things around on this article and removed some editorial language. I concurred about the heroin conviction subsection, but haven't changed it. I didn't write any of that. Seananony (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I concur 2600:1700:E710:5230:ECFD:F22B:9FCC:7566 (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
It also makes the incident with the whale sound cruel and has it under the heading of "animal cruelty". I went to the article cited and this is what it actually says:
Kick's taste for the extreme was fed by her dad's eccentric environmentalism. Exhibit A: When she was six, word got out that a dead whale had washed up on Squaw Island in Hyannis Port. Bobby — who likes to study animal skulls and skeletons — ran down to the beach with a chainsaw, cut off the whale's head, and then bungee-corded it to the roof of the family minivan for the five-hour haul back to Mount Kisco, New York. "Every time we accelerated on the highway, whale juice would pour into the windows of the car, and it was the rankest thing on the planet," Kick recalls. "We all had plastic bags over our heads with mouth holes cut out, and people on the highway were giving us the finger, but that was just normal day-to-day stuff for us." Jalcruces (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Caoruktnmsmo See revision to start the Career section with Manhattan DA's office subsection. Seananony (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Absolutely. Vaccine reform advocate, cynic, skeptic would work better and be closer the truth- AS THE ARTICLE ITSELF STATES LATER. It's a contradiction with itself when clarifying he believes the vigorous stages of trial the CDC insist upon other medicines be applied to vaccines, where they are hardly held to the same standards in United States compared to EU. Not a crazy idea. This description is nothing short of misleading. If anything using a couple more words to accurately describe his stance over short and digestible phrases like anti vaxxer or conspiracy theorist would be some basic journalistic integrity. But hay ho this is an admin only edit page so guess only the big cheese gets that privilege.. not us. Well at least this isn't the general populous' go to source for a basic overview of any and everything. I expect this to be accidental. OscarHuntington (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC) — OscarHuntington (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply
That is not how reliable sources describe the subject. Zaathras (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 August 2024

edit
Latest comment: 7 days ago10 comments7 people in discussion

Remove “conspiracy theorist”- many of the “conspiracies” have come true, therefore making them real, not theories. 47.213.153.187 (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
There is no data to support "conspiracy theorist." No data is included to specify what theories he holds that have data to show they are not true. This is a politically biased statement. 208.64.173.4 (talk) 05:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
It is how reliable sources describe him EvergreenFir (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Came on here to request the same.Completely politically, biased labeling. 67.255.103.134 (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's not, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Credible sources including the NYT and the World Health Organization have admitted his theories are not "conspiracies". the NYT reported on Covid Vaccine injuries in 2024. The WHO admitted Covid came from a lab in 2023, something RFK asserted in 2021. Calling him a "conspiracy theorist" is based on oudated and now false information. Additionally the perception of him as a "conspiracy theorist" was due to censorship warning labels placed on media featuring his message or removal of his content. Mark Zuckerberg has since come forward to admit the censorship was partisan and illegally forced by the Biden administration. In canada those labeled as spreading "misinformation" as "conspiracy" regarding covid were allowed to file a class action law suit, as most of that "conspiracy" has now been proven to be true. Timidlezoo (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC) — Timidlezoo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply
This is nonsense. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
That is a biased subjective claim without any credible evidence cited. You can google all of the above. It is fact. Timidlezoo (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia articles are not written based on cherry-picked articles that say what you believe, no matter how low-quality. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Kennedy is not an anti-vaxxer

edit
Latest comment: 8 hours ago30 comments9 people in discussion

The "numerous sources" all say he is an anti-vaxxer but he is not. The only thing he has ever promoted is to treat vaccines with the same rigor in testing as we do other medicines. He's vaccinated, his kids are vaccinated, except for Covid. How come someone is an anti-vaxxer if they don't want to take one vaccine? Ridiculous. 65.191.153.96 (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:MANDY applies. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@65.191.153.96 I would further suggest that labeling him as an anti-vaccine activist right in the article description does not match the following quote on the article:
""People who advocate for safer vaccines should not be marginalized or denounced as anti-vaccine. I am pro-vaccine. I had all six of my children vaccinated. I believe that vaccines have saved the lives of hundreds of millions of humans over the past century and that broad vaccine coverage is critical to public health. But I want our vaccines to be as safe as possible."
Further, the article describes many other areas of activism. So narrowing the article description to focus on just the vaccine activism doesn't match the rest of the article either.
Can somebody please change the article description to just say "activist" instead of anti-vaccine activist? Thanks MensaGlobetrotter (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
No. Read WP:MANDY. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Muboshgu Ok, you make a fair argument on that point. However, you didn't address the other point: he has engaged in many areas of activism, so why only specify the vaccine activism in the article description? He has been engaged in indigenous rights activism and environmental activism for longer than vaccine activism. I have no love for anti-vaxxers and the harm they do, but this article description is too narrow. MensaGlobetrotter (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wait, you're referring to the short description? That I agree with. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I also agree with. Drsruli (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think that this may be a misapplication of MANDY.
It seems to me that a distinction should be made with regard to this rule, as to when the subject denies an action, or denies an opinion. The reason is that publicly expressing his opinion in the denial establishes his opinion with as much weight as any other possibly mis-attributed quote. (A denial cannot undo an action this way.) I don't think that MANDY should be used to disregard statements made as to one's beliefs.

"A lot of people have mis-represented what I think about this. I am going to make my thoughts on the subject clear, here and now..." This can't be disregarded with MANDY. Drsruli (talk) 05:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

No. Anti-science people routinely cloak and couch their fringe beliefs with pseudoscience, that is all an RFK Jr. denial is. Pseudo-scientific claptrap. Zaathras (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not necessarily. Even IF the other reports must be believed, he could still have changed his mind. Drsruli (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
All of the cited "sources" that claim RFK Jr. is anti-vax do not themselves provide any evidence that RFK Jr. is in fact anti-vax. But I suppose the reliable sources should never be questioned. Since they are, after all, the reliable sources. PrinzHohenstaufen (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
WP:Verifiability, not truth – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
We can verify what he himself said about what he thinks, as well. Drsruli (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
All anti-vaxxers say they are not anti-vax but in favor of "safe vaccines", but they have no clue how to find out if a vaccine is safe or not - meaning that they call safe vaccines unsafe because they believe in imaginary dangers. That is what Kennedy is all about. What Kennedy days is typical anti-vaxxer-speak. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Report what he says. If a source makes your observation, then you can include that. Opinions or beliefs about vaccinations are not fundamentally different than opinions and beliefs about anything else. If Kennedy has done things to contradict his stated beliefs, then those should certainly be mentioned. You may describe an "anti-vaxxer" as somebody who is only in favour of safer vaccines, and maintains that currently accepted vaccines are not safe. (But then, some people are actually against vaccines in principal, so maybe this isn't a precise term to use.) Drsruli (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
WP:MANDY. RFK Jr is against safe vaccines. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
He's explicitly not against safe vaccines. Drsruli (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
He is against vaccines that have been proven to be safe, hence he is against safe vaccines. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Read all fine print on vaccines. They all allow for very serious injury. Some people have been victim of this injury, some people have not. There is no 100% "safe" vaccine for everyone. He is not anti-vaccine. He is pro being informed, pro slowed or adapted schedules or the parent's right to forego certain ingredients in certain vaccines - something that used to be taboo but is now widely accepted among most peditricians. Timidlezoo (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC) — Timidlezoo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply
Nobody said 100% safe. Cars aren't 100% safe. This all remains nonsense and a waste of time. The descriptor is not going to change. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
In the case of vaccines, where the major benefit comes as a benefit to society (when the vaccine is given universally, or nearly so), at least for many vaccines, the individual might (admittedly selfishly) evaluate the small risk from the vaccine against the also small risk that he will contract the disease AND have a damaging outcome. (Statistically, not getting the vaccine could also be viewed as "safe".) (Many people might see exposing themselves to a small risk for the sake of a condition that they do not have, as being relatively "unsafe"; apparently some people do think this way.) It's not the same as refusing treatment for a condition that one actually already has. I didn't come to argue about vaccines, but since you mentioned this comparison, then this perspective occurred to me. Drsruli (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
That is not the point. Kennedy opposes vaccines for reasons that are clearly wrong. He spreads disinformation about them. The vaccines are safe compared to the imaginary dangerous vaccines Kennedy believes them to be. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
He says that he and his family are fully vaccinated and the only ones that they've skipped were for C-19. If you asked me what does somebody believe in, knowing this about them, and this represents their current stated opinion, then it would be difficult for me to characterize them as "anti-vaccination", although if they had previously publicly made statements to the contrary then I suppose that they might be judged even more insidiously. Drsruli (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
As a practical matter, there are scores of references attesting to a vast anti-vax output. Law suits, speeches, activism, movies, books, articles. That's what he does. He has been doing it for nearly two decades. This article accurately describes Jr. as an anti-vaxer and conspiracy theorist. X-raying Jr.'s head to discern some posited belief is irrelevant. That exercise is unrelated to anything we might in Wikipedia.-- M.boli (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Maybe he had his kids vaccinated and afterwards changed his mind and became an anti-vaxxer. These two things are not mutually exclusive. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
In light of his most recent statements, we could also say that he used to have such opinions, but has since changed his mind. Drsruli (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Only if we have good sources saying that he did. It is likely that he did not and that he just uses a wording that could be interpreted that way, since anti-vax opinions are usually write-protected (anti-vaxxers are vaccinated against reasoning). --Hob Gadling (talk)

Seems that we've come full circle, but at least we do report what he himself said recently. (It seems that you're contradicting what you said above about trying to get into his mind to see what he really thinks. We can only go by what he says and does. The last thing that he said was....) Drsruli (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply


Not always: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-covid-19-anti-vaccine-man-changes-mind-1.6201220 "Jason Lerato says he spent years as a self-proclaimed "anti-vaxxer," and it wasn't until recently that he had a change of perspective."

https://www.thestar.com/podcasts/this-matters/i-had-to-go-through-the-discomfort-of-being-wrong-a-self-proclaimed-anti-vaxxer/article_6a13f14c-02c0-539c-ad94-c96b25bffd93.html "She used to call herself an anti-vaxxer, now Lydia Greene is a student nurse who just administered her first vaccine."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-vaccine_activism - "Anti-vaccine activism, which collectively constitutes the "anti-vax" movement, is a set of organized activities proclaiming opposition to vaccination..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_hesitancy - ""Anti-vaccinationism" refers to total opposition to vaccination; in more recent years, anti-vaccinationists have been known as "anti-vaxxers" or "anti-vax"." (Both these last are sourced.)

Drsruli (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This article rather prominently quotes Jr.'s "I am pro-vaccine" statement in the anti-vaccine advocacy Overview section.
Meanwhile Jr. has been a very busy the past 19 years promoting anti-vax and health-related conspiracy theories in books, law suits, writings, running Children's Health Defense, speeches, movies, etc. His rather extensive output cannot be ignored, and is only lightly covered in this article with scores of references.
Trying to argue with Wikipedia editors over the definition of anti-vax, or showing examples of other anti-vaxers who changed their minds, is a pointless exercise. Your beef is with reality, not with Wikipedia.
Jr.'s absurd denial is given its due. But necessarily most of the Wikipedia writeup will reflect the sheer tonnage of Jr's activities, as extensively reported. -- M.boli (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Clearly, there are people who are explicitly against vaccines in principle, and identify themselves as such. Drsruli (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Other political afflictions - Republican?

edit
Latest comment: 15 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Shouldn't the Republican party (2024) be added under the other political afflictions in the infobox? Even tho he is not an officall member it is still often put up like that. For example on the Bernie Sanders page it says Democratic Party (2015-2016, 2019-2020) because he was in the party for that time. Leikstjórinn (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are there any sources that he has changed his party registration? There is a long history of people endorsing members of rival parties including Joe Lieberman, who backed McCain and was considered for his running mate. TFD (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Elide childrens' names?

edit
Latest comment: 12 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I don't see why the names of Jr.'s children are in this article. I think that absent notability on their own, it is usual practice to leave them out. But I haven't found a policy on this. Arguably RFK III could be mentioned because he is married to a notable person, and her wiki-page mentions him as the connection to Kennedy. But other than possibly that one child, I think the rest should be dropped. -- M.boli (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:BLPNAME is the policy discussing why we leave out names of non-notable individuals, M.boli. WP:NONAME is an essay on the subject. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have edited the names out. Thank you for checking on this and providing references. -- M.boli (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Other animals

edit
Latest comment: 9 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Whale, Emu and ravens, other pets Not sure to what extent these should be reflected in the article. ScienceFlyer (talk) 05:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the topic is veering into the lurid tabloids now, honestly. Zaathras (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Except the New York Times and Vanity Fair aren't lurid tabloids like the New York Post and National Enquirer. I think at this point the accumulated insanity and disconnect from social norms is notable enough to merit at least a mention. Maybe the heading "Treatment of dead animals" could be changed to "Treatment of animals, living and dead"? It implies the weirdness without veering into the tabloid style aimed at aficionados of luridity. Carlstak (talk)
It's your opinion that these events together form a pattern. However, policy says that such conclusions can only be reported if they are reliably sourced, otherwise it is synthesis. Personally, I don't think that feeding wild birds violates social norms. TFD (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
"...accumulated insanity and disconnect from social norms" is my opinion expressed here on the talk page, I'm not suggesting that such conclusions belong in the article. The fact that there are reliable sources that mention the interactions he's had with animals, living or dead, means they could be mentioned in the article without drawing conclusions from them, which would be "synthesis". Carlstak (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Auto-archiving period

edit
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please extend the auto-archiving period (from the current 14 days). Drsruli (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It has been extended to 21 days. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 September 2024

edit
Latest comment: 4 days ago6 comments5 people in discussion
An edit request was made, an edit request was rejected. Move on. Zaathras (talk) 01:26, 8 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.

This information suggesting RFK Jr is a conspiracy theorist for his investigation into Covid and Vaccines is outdated.

Marc Zuckerberg and his company Meta, admitted to censoring information related to Covid in 2024. This admission impacts Kennedy and the public's perception of him as a "conspiracy theorist". https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/zuckerberg-says-the-white-house-pressured-facebook-to-censor-some-covid-19-content-during-the-pandemic

In 2024 the NYT reported thousands were infact injured by the Covid Vaccine: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/03/health/covid-vaccines-side-effects.html

The World Health Organization also announced in 2023 that COVID did infact come from a lab, as reported by the NY Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/26/us/politics/china-lab-leak-coronavirus-pandemic.html RFK Jr had asserted Covid likely came from a lab throughout the pandemic and was repeatedly called a "conspiracy theorist".

Please update this article. It is not accurate or reflective of new and credible information that has emerged. Timidlezoo (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC) — Timidlezoo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply

Oh look, it's yet another thread from a brand new user saying exactly the same nonsense. Can we just delete these on sight at this point, please? It's a massive waste of everyone's time to relitigate the same nonsense over and over. Theknightwho (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not done and will not be done. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hello, another user concerned about the massive incongruencies in this article. Per your rules of engagement, I am requesting that you treat the comments of previous users via the rules of Wikipedia i.e. in "good faith." The previous comments that you have dismissed have cited sources per the Wikipedia guidelines. I would like to add that Dr. Anthony Fauci's wikipedia page has not been updated given the recent hearing with the Oversight Committee on June 4, 2024: https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-dr-fauci-held-publicly-accountable-by-select-subcommittee/ proving that Dr. Fauci did indeed misguide the public on COVID-19 guidelines and even had staff members with conflicts of interest.
In addition to the comment above about thousands being injured by the COVID-19 vaccine, there was real-time evidence to bad batches which injured several in Orange County: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/18/health/ca-vaccine-lot-pause/index.html
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) 00:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC) — Maraharcher804 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 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.

Date in presidential campaign section needs correcting

edit
Latest comment: 7 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The last sentence of the presidential campaign section states, "On September 30, he sued North Carolina's State Board of Elections to take him off the North Carolina ballot.". That date is in the future so this is impossible. I don't know what the correct date is because the source is paywalled. TWM03 (talk) 09:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

You are correct, date was August 30. I deleted it, as the ballot-access detailed narrative is in the campaign article. -- M.boli (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

New source: MAHA

edit
Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[1] about Trump buying Kennedy with a Health and Human Services secretary post, and about his "MAHA" plans. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

History of censorship

edit
Latest comment: 4 hours ago6 comments4 people in discussion
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.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.&oldid=1245330898"