HomeMy WebLinkAbout03.28.26 Board Correspondence - FW_ Have YOU crossed constitutional boundaries causing censorship & government overreach.ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening
attachments, clicking on links, or replying..
From:Clerk of the Board
To:Jessee, Meegan
Cc:Lee, Lewis
Subject:Board Correspondence - FW: Have YOU crossed constitutional boundaries causing censorship & government
overreach? YES! The bigger question is why? Do you want your community dead?
Date:Monday, March 30, 2026 4:52:24 PM
Please see Board Correspondence -
From: lance dreiss <lancedreiss@att.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2026 9:39 AM
To: Shared Mailbox Clerk of the Board <pcbs@countyofplumas.com>;
Assemblymember.Gallagher@assembly.ca.gov; Senator.Dahle@senate.ca.gov;
davidhollister@countyofplumas.com; sheriff@countyofplumas.com; District Attorney
<District_Attorney@buttecounty.net>; Nicolereinert@countyofplumas.com; Kitts, Melissa
<mkitts@buttecounty.net>; Soderstrom, Monica <msoderstrom@buttecounty.net>; Durfee, Peter
<PDurfee@buttecounty.net>; Ronald Owens <ronald@muzzledtruth.com>; Kimmelshue, Tod
<TKimmelshue@buttecounty.net>; Pickett, Andy <APickett@buttecounty.net>; Connelly, Bill
<BConnelly@buttecounty.net>; Teeter, Doug <DTeeter@buttecounty.net>; Beaudoin, Jarett
<JBeaudoin@buttecounty.net>; Julie Threet <julie4butte5@gmail.com>; Waugh, Melanie
<mwaugh@buttecounty.ca.gov>; Ritter, Tami <TRitter@buttecounty.net>; Teri DuBose
<Teri.DuBose@mail.house.gov>; Clerk of the Board <clerkoftheboard@buttecounty.net>; Stephens,
Brad J. <BStephens@buttecounty.net>
Subject: Have YOU crossed constitutional boundaries causing censorship & government overreach?
YES! The bigger question is why? Do you want your community dead?
Public Record
“In a major legal development, courts have delivered a decisive ruling against
government-backed social media censorship during the COVID-19 era—marking
what many are calling a landmark victory for the First Amendment. This case,
involving federal agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) and the Office of the Surgeon General, found that government pressure on
tech platforms to suppress certain viewpoints crossed constitutional boundaries. The
settlement now restricts these agencies from coercing or threatening social media
companies over protected speech, reinforcing that digital platforms do not alter
fundamental free speech protections.
The ruling goes further, clarifying that labeling content as “misinformation,”
“disinformation,” or “malinformation” does not strip it of constitutional protection—a
critical point in the broader debate over online censorship and government overreach.
Internal communications released during the case revealed extensive coordination
between public health officials and major tech companies, including Meta Platforms,
raising new questions about the role of Big Tech in moderating public discourse. For
many, this decision represents a turning point in the ongoing fight for transparency,
accountability, and the preservation of open dialogue in the digital age.
At the same time, courts are increasingly weighing in on vaccine mandates and
religious exemptions, with multiple rulings affirming the legal strength of religious
accommodation claims. Recent cases against hospitals and employers—including
actions supported by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—have
resulted in financial penalties for failing to honor religious objections to COVID-19
vaccination requirements. These outcomes signal a growing legal framework
supporting informed consent, individual rights, and protections against compelled
medical interventions.
Meanwhile, a wave of lawsuits targeting major tech companies is gaining momentum,
with juries finding platforms liable for harms related to content moderation, child
safety, and social media addiction. High-profile cases against companies like Meta
Platforms and YouTube suggest a broader legal reckoning may be underway—some
are comparing this to past industry-defining litigation. As hundreds of cases move
forward and new legislation emerges at the state level, these developments point to a
rapidly evolving legal landscape shaping the future of free speech, public health
policy, and Big Tech accountability in America.”
diana dreiss