Case Update: Richard Wilkinson, MD

Motion to Dismiss

---

Throughout the Pandemic, Americans were censored for disagreeing with the government policies. This is especially true of our medical professionals. Here in Washington, doctors and other medical professionals have faced the loss of their license to practice medicine simply for speaking out against the policies they saw as, not just scientifically inaccurate, but harmful. The Washington Medical Commission has adopted a misinformation and disinformation policy in an attempt to silence medical professionals who might disagree with their draconian and misguided COVID policies. Those doctors and other medical professionals who have had the courage and moral rectitude to stand against such policies are being threatened with the loss of their license. Such is the case for Dr. Wilkinson. Throughout the pandemic, he worked many long hours to help keep high risk, or sick individuals out of already crowded hospitals in the Yakima area. He also tried to inform the public of important information about COVID and public policies through his blog. For his hard work and statements his license is in jeopardy. However, we here at Silent Majority Foundation are fighting back. We have filed a motion for dismissal of some of the charges against him based on free speech. The following is an excerpt from our memorandum.

“Debate over the policies foisted upon both medical professionals and the public during the pandemic are not granted a special exemption under the First Amendment; as the Supreme Court has stated, “even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.” Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63, 68, 208 L.Ed.2d 206, 210 (2020).  As Conant emphasizes, public health policies are government policy open for vigorous public debate, and are protected by the First Amendment.  Without the ability to speak about these policies, individuals seeking medical treatment cannot be assured that the best measures are employed in their care.  Nor can the people have confidence that the government is doing its most important job--protecting the rights of a free people.  Open debate is the bulwark of a free society.  Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 587 n.3, 100 S. Ct. 2814, 2833, 65 L.Ed.2d 973, 996 (1980) (quoting Saxbe v. Wash. Post Co., 417 U.S. 843, 862-63, 94 S. Ct. 2811, 2821, 41 L.Ed.2d 514, 527 (1974)).  It is only through the sieve of open and public debate that truth is realized, and the best debate for this purpose is a debate amongst experts in the field.  Through this policy, the WMC is derailing that debate, especially when it comes to the right of the public to hear from the experts, i.e., medical professionals.  Instead, the WMC allows itself to speak freely touting its apparent expertise, but denies medical professionals the same right.  In other words, it is attempting to limit the kind of information the public is allowed to hear by limiting the speech of medical professionals as medical professionals.  Thus, in no way, can a regulation of the speech of a medical professional as it relates to novel top-down regulations be a compelling government interest.  Because the WMC cannot prove that its policy regarding misinformation and disinformation is a compelling government interest, and that its application of such policy as regards Dr. Wilkinson’s speech, it may not punish Dr. Wilkinson for his speech.”

We will continue to provide updates on our cases as we move forward. Silent Majority Foundation is dedicated to not just informing the public about bad policies, but is taking action on behalf of Americans across the nation.