admin
Alex Berenson lost a big fight this week in federal court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of his claims against two Pfizer executives — Albert Bourla and Scott Gottlieb — in his lawsuit over being kicked off Twitter. For conservatives worried about censorship, the decision reads like a long legal shrug: the contract wins, even if the facts look messy.
Second Circuit backs Twitter’s terms, clears Pfizer leaders
The appeals panel said Berenson failed to show the kind of class‑based animus required by federal law to make his conspiracy claim stick. The judges also relied on Twitter’s terms of service, which say the platform can suspend or terminate accounts “at any time for any or no reason.” That boilerplate contract language sank Berenson’s tortious‑interference theory against Albert Bourla and Scott Gottlieb. In short: the court treated Twitter’s fine print like a shield for whoever pulls the moderation lever.
Legal rules at play: Section 1985 and terms of service
Why “unvaccinated” isn’t a protected class
The court leaned on long‑standing law about Section 1985 — the part of the code that can reach conspiracies aimed at groups targeted because of who they are. Judges have said again and again that being “unvaccinated” does not qualify as a protected class the way race or religion does. That legal line keeps Section 1985 from becoming a general remedy for every speaker who thinks they were wronged for saying the wrong thing during the pandemic.
So what does this mean for free speech and Big Pharma?
Call it a cautionary tale. If you think Big Tech, Big Pharma and government advisers were cozy in 2021, the court did not disagree with all the facts on the record — but it still said the law and contracts protect the actors involved. That is a hard pill for anyone who believes the public should be able to pry open who told platforms to silence critics. The ruling reinforces a troubling reality: platforms’ terms of service and narrow federal statutes can block discovery and accountability, even when questions about influence and pressure remain.
Where we go from here — transparency and reforms
Berenson’s immediate options are limited, and a Supreme Court review would be an uphill climb. But the bigger issue survives: Americans want clearer rules, not fine‑print immunity. Conservatives should press for reforms that limit secret influence over speech decisions, require transparency about government‑industry interactions, and curb the power of opaque terms of service to shut down accountability. If the law says the truth can be buried behind a contract, then the law needs changing — and yes, that means Congress, not just complaint threads.
