Go Fund Me Takes Down Fundraising Campaign for Litigation Over Vaccine Mandate

We previously discussed how GoFundMe has joined social media sites in censoring opposing viewpoints on subjects from critical race theory to vaccines to election fraud. The site once offered a neutral site for those seeking to support others with similar views or interests. The company now insists that it will only allow people to gather on the site if it believes their views are true and correct. However, it was still surprising to see the site take down a fundraising account for litigation against vaccine mandates. The effort of former nurse Jennifer Bridges was simply to get such matters before the courts, which can be the ultimate authority on what is “misinformation.” GoFundMe however blocked people from contributing to the litigation.

Bridges is a former registered nurse at Houston Methodist hospital who was fired after refusing to comply with the hospital’s vaccine requirement. She raised more than $180,000 for her lawsuit before being shutdown under the company’s “misinformation” policy. Heidi Hagberg, a spokesperson for GoFundMe, said in a statement to Business Insider that “when our team initially reviewed the fundraiser, it was within our terms of service as the funds were for legal fees to fight vaccine mandates. The fundraiser has since been updated to include misinformation which violates our terms of service.”

What is striking about this latest ban is that the courts are the place for such claims to be weighed in a neutral and dispassionate forum. “Misinformation” can be addressed by judges after both sides are allowed to present evidence. Bridges’ lawsuit was dismissed in June, Bridges’ attorneys appealed the decision. We should all favor such reviews. Indeed, if GoFundMe believes that Bridges is wrong, it should invite further judicial review to established a clear record on such issues.

GoFundMe admits to have taken down “hundreds” of fundraisers that included statements of “misinformation related to vaccines.”

I do not agree with the arguments against the vaccine. I and my family are vaccinated. However, I am equally concerned with avoiding the growing virus of censorship. In the last few years, we have seen an increasing call for private censorship from Democratic politicians and liberal commentators. Faculty and editors are now actively supporting modern versions of book-burning with blacklists and bans for those with opposing political views. The most chilling aspect of this story is how many on the left applaud such censorship. A new poll shows roughly half of the public supporting not just corporate censorship but government censorship of anything deemed “misinformation.”

Free speech can be its own disinfectant for bad speech. GoFundMe is a private company and can impose such rules on users. However, it is an act of censorship and it is a denial of free speech by a corporation. In this case, the company is preventing its site from being used to raise money to allow courts to review the factual and legal basis for these claims — a curious effort for a company that claims to be fighting “misinformation.”



291 thoughts on “Go Fund Me Takes Down Fundraising Campaign for Litigation Over Vaccine Mandate”

  1. Anyone who think things haven’t gotten out of hand should read this article.

    Virginia dad arrested at school board meeting: Daughter was raped in bathroom by boy in skirt
    The suspect has allegedly committed a repeat offense since being transferred to a different school.


  2. Anonymous says:

    “Jeff, these comment threads are RIGGED. Turley and Smith have no intention of letting liberals win any arguments here.”

    I’m getting close to my abandoning this blog. I came here originally out of admiration for Turley for taking a stand contrary to the Liberal mainstream view during the Impeachments. I respect a person with that courage.

    But as I read more of Turley’s posts, my respect dissipated as his hypocrisy became too obvious. Especially his contributing to, and appearing with, Fox News’ rage provocateurs despite his denunciation of the “age of rage.” In spite of his selling out to Fox (presumably for financial reasons if not ideological), he does maintain his distance from the Fox prime time hosts by never referring to them, much less praising them, though he should be criticizing them MORE than he rightly criticizes the prime time hosts at CNN and MSNBC.

    I remain interested in following his transition from Trumpist darling to persona non grata (as I have predicted) once Trump and his cohorts finally are tried in civil and criminal courts. I firmly believe that the true Turley will be revealed at that time because he will no longer be able to avoid taking an unambiguous stand. He will back-up the rule of law and due process whereas the Trumpists will expect him to declare that the guilty verdicts and civil judgments were finagled by Deep State prosecutors, ruled over by Leftist judges and decided by Liberal juries. He will have none of that (if I have judged him correctly).

    I will now monitor whether my comments are deleted. If Darren does not wish me here to remain, all he need do is to so inform me rather than delete my comments without warning. As I have said, it’s Turley’s blog, and if he can’t take the criticism, he doesn’t have to. He can continue to promote a Fox News narrative without any pushback.

    Despite the fact that he does not read any of our comments- pro or con- I contribute my criticism if for no other reason than to make a record for future biographers and/or writers who may one day read Res Ipsa Loquitur in order to get better acquainted with the professor’s ideas and motivations.

    Let it be known that Turley could have stood up at great personal risk (like Liz Cheney) to condemn Trump’s Big Lie both resolutely and repeatedly- neither of which he has done. Whether history records him at all, sadly Turley will not be remembered as a *tzadik* who took a stand when it most mattered.

  3. Anonymous says:

    “I emailed Turley about it, but he didn’t respond. I’ve written Turley a number of times since then (e.g., to report comments threatening violence, to let him know about typos and factual errors in his columns). Usually, there is no response, but a few times, he’s responded to thank me. I wrote twice after a bunch of my comments were deleted for no reason that I could tell. I got no response the first time, and the second time he responded, saying that he didn’t know why my comments were being deleted. He did not attempt to put me in touch with Darren, and my attempts to get a response from Darren here went unanswered. I have not written Turley to complain about Darren’s inconsistent moderation.”

    Thanks for your reply about emailing Turley. That was very helpful. I guess the takeaway is- a polite acknowledgment but one without a follow through. Given that Darren’s job is one very few would want to do, I gather Turley does not wish to second guess him lest Darren tells him to take this job and politely shove it.

    It is very disheartening that Darren does not interject here. If he went to the trouble of conscientiously explaining to me on 2 occasions why he deleted a comment of mine because it violated the civility rule, I can’t understand why he would not explain also these recent deletions.

    I don’t want to believe that Darren is censoring fair criticism of Turley. If there is an innocent and justifiable reason, let’s have it. Silence breeds our contempt, for his non-responsiveness implies that Darren could not care less what we think about his conduct.

    I will have to monitor my contributions from now on to see whether they are summarily deleted. If they continue to be, I will send a certified letter to Turley to formally put him on notice of the apparent censorship here.

    I think EVERYONE here would agree that Turley ought to practice what he preaches (well, I can’t speak for S.Meyer).

  4. “Given what happened when the first round of guest bloggers left JT’s blog, in protest, it’s just not worth the effort. Gotta pick your battles.”

    What in the Sam Hill are you talking about “the first round of guest bloggers left JT’s blog in protest”?

    When was this?

    “Bottom line, Jonathan Turley should be paying attention (and he clearly isn’t) — and fix this problem.”

    I repeat, has anyone ever reported trying to reach out to Turley to determine what is the problem/policy? I don’t want to email him if there is no prospect of a reply. Perhaps, I should stand outside the door of one of his classrooms at GW, but I suspect nowadays one must have an GW ID to gain access to the building!

  5. Anonymous,

    My initial post which referred to Eastman was NOT in reply to someone else’s comment. So, I don’t believe that your theory holds that my comment was deleted as a result of Darren banning someone else (if I have understood you correctly).

    As far as your suggestion to email Turley, I don’t want to follow him into the bathroom as it were! He knows that his silence is deafening since the ostracizing of Eastman is a repudiation of everything that Turley chants on this blog.

    I have argued that shaming, shunning and ostracizing are Constitutionally protected and necessary reactions to bad speech (in addition to good speech). My complaint is that Turley thinks good speech is sufficient and shaming and shunning are akin to censorship. They are not. People should discriminate against bad speakers; otherwise, how do we reform Neo-Nazis, etc.

    If Turley does not defend Eastman, it could be that he thinks Eastman deserves being made persona non grata. You may recall that I noted that Turley did not come to the defense of Giuliani and Powell when they were found to have perpetrated a fraud in a Michigan district court and accordingly sanctioned. It would appear that Turley is not willing to defend the indefensible unlike a Trumpist.

    1. I think mincing words or events is kind of moot at this point, and it has been since at least 2012: the DNC is a fascist regime that will do literally anything to attain power. Period. This will mean nothing to the younger folks amongst us. Combined, we are still a majority against them. STOP VOTING DEMOCRAT. PERIOD. YOU ARE NO LONGER VOTING FOR JFK OR THE DEM PARY OF THE 60s. You, who should know better are voting for Sovietism in our United States of America.

      1. Sadly, people who vote in Leftists truly believe they’re enlightened by doing so. History has proven them wrong times a hundred million dead in the 20th century alone but ‘meh’, they say.

  6. “‘Global Predators’ Fauci, Gates, and Schwab Behind the COVID ‘Reign of Terror’” (by Dr. Peter Breggin, known as the “conscience of psychiatry”)

    “Don’t get scared, get angry. Don’t get demoralized. They want that. There’s a whole school of public health that talks about how to intimidate and engender fear to get people to do what you want. It’s called ‘fear appeal.’ So we have to know that there’s a war against us. They have a stealth war against us. So be proud. Be an American, be a patriot, stand up for liberty.”

    “It’s extremely important to get over what essentially is an attempt to make us all feel helpless and obedient and docile. We have to know who are the masters driving this. We also need to understand the mechanisms of what is essentially a rein of terror. We’re looking at a revolution against us that wants to make us feel helpless like children again.”


    This is *not* about Covid or the vaccines. This is about power-lusters using a virus as a means to an evil end: To spread terror and herd sheep.

  7. Jonathan: You have opined endlessly about how conservative opinions are being “cancelled” or “censored”. Right-wing pundits complain all the time about the “cancel culture”. But except for the few anecdotal cases you have mentioned in columns the evidence is paper thin that conservatives are being cancelled en masse. In fact, right-wing commentary is all over the mass media–from Fox to a host of right-wing blogs. It’s ubiquitous. Jon Stewart recently remarked: “”People that talk about cancel culture never seem to shut the f— up about it…Like, there’s more speech now than ever before”. So now you take up the case of Jennifer Bridges who claims she was “censored” by gofundme when they cancelled her fundraising account because she promotes false theories about Covid vaccine mandates. You say gofundme is guilty of “censorship” and violating Bridges’ “free speech” rights and the courts should decide. Well, one court, the Supreme Court this week did decide in a similar case.

    Back in 2017 the California Republican Club (CRC) wanted to host an event at the Maxwell House in Pasadena, a venue leased from the city by the Western Justice Center(WJC). The CRC event was to feature John Eastman as speaker. You remember John Eastman. He’s the former law professor at Chapman University Law School who supported Trump’s false claims of massive voter fraud in last year’s election, riled up the crowd at the Jan. rally/insurrection and urged VP Pence to cancel the Constitution by refusing to certify the electoral vote. Eastman has also long opposed same-sex marriage and other LGBT rights. Based on Eastman’s clear record the WJC cancelled the CRC event. The CRC sued claiming a violation of their First Amendment rights because the WJC was an arm of the government through its lease of city property. The 9th Circuit ruled against the CRC. The CRC appealed to the Supreme Court that on Tuesday declined to hear the case. Wow!
    If the Supreme Court has refused to hear the CRC appeal what makes you think Jennifer Bridges will have better luck in the courts?

  8. Yesterday I outlined voter fraud in wisconsin where nearly 25,000 people skipped voter ID requirements along with other voting irregularities that are not allowed.

    I bring these things up, because earlier such charges were dismissed by bloggers and some could only counter with voter suppression.
    Michigan charges three women with election fraud during 2020 election
    One of the women is accused of fraudulently filling out ballots in the names of nursing home residents without their permission.

    “Investigators determined Nancy Juanita Williams, 55, planned to control absentee ballots for legally incapacitated persons under her care by fraudulently submitting 26 absentee ballot applications to nine identified city and township clerks. Williams sought to have absentee ballots for those individuals mailed directly to her. She also submitted separate voter registration applications for each person – all without knowledge, consent, or understanding of the person under her care. MSP ultimately referred the case to DAG in May 2021 for charges.”…



Comments are closed.