Direct answers.

Without freedom of speech and information, there is no truly informed medical choice. Informed consent requires the freedom to question, compare evidence, discuss risks and benefits, and hear dissenting views.

Censor the information, and you compromise the consent.

This is why the Finn plaintiffs, several of whom were named on the CCDH “Disinformation Dozen” list precisely because they were physicians and researchers publishing peer-reviewed information the government preferred not be discussed, view the case as inseparable from medical freedom. The First Amendment is the constitutional protection that makes informed consent possible in the first place.

Parenting requires the freedom to research, to ask, to compare, and to say no in public without professional retaliation.

Silence the questions, and parenthood is reduced to executing decisions made by bureaucracies whose deliberations parents are barred from seeing.

The 2021 National School Boards Association letter to the Department of Justice — which labeled parents’ school-board advocacy as “domestic terrorism” and prompted a federal law-enforcement memorandum five days later — is the case study for what happens when the Petition Clause is not enforced.

Faith requires the freedom to publish, teach, and defend moral views the state may find inconvenient — on marriage, on conscience, on life, on the body.

Silence the pulpit and the printing press, and the free-exercise clause becomes a museum exhibit, not a lived right.

The Speech Clause and the Free Exercise Clause are written in the same sentence for a reason: a government that can suppress religious speech online can, in practice, regulate religious exercise itself.

A functioning republic requires reporters, broadcasters, and citizen journalists free to investigate power — including the power that funds them, hosts them, and can quietly demote them.

Throttle the press, and self-government becomes the performance of choice without its substance.

Every coalition-media partner listed on the site — The HighWire, Natural News, Brighteon, GreenMedInfo, DailyClout — has direct experience of the same jawboning pipeline the Finn plaintiffs sued over. Independent journalism is the pillar that connects the last censorship regime to the emerging one.

Assembly, petition, and vote all depend on the freedom to organize, to persuade, and to answer — publicly and without fear that a government-funded intermediary is quietly ranking your reach.

Suppress the debate, and consent of the governed becomes consent to be managed.

The Global Engagement Center, whose reports the Finn plaintiffs sued over, was closed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio in April 2025 on the stated ground that it had been used to “actively silence and censor the voices of Americans.” That is the injury to political participation the coalition’s policy blueprint is designed to prevent from recurring.

A federal lawsuit filed in the Middle District of Florida by six Americans named on a British-produced foreign-intermediary target list — the CCDH “Disinformation Dozen” report — that was routed through the U.S. State Department’s Global Engagement Center and then acted on by U.S. social-media platforms.

The plaintiffs alleged that federal officials, foreign-intermediary NGOs, and platform trust-and-safety teams coordinated to reduce their reach, remove their content, and demonetize their businesses in violation of the First Amendment.

The case was dismissed on July 28, 2026 on pleading defects — a procedural ruling. The court terminated all pending motions and never reached the evidence.

The six named plaintiffs represent physicians, publishers, activists, and small-business owners whose accounts, businesses, and livelihoods were demonstrably impaired by the coordinated distribution penalties documented in the case.

Their full public statement is on the site. Their individual case histories are in the Named-Target Record.

Because it was not dismissed on the merits. The court did not decide whether the White House pressured Facebook to reduce the plaintiffs’ reach by sixty percent. The court decided the complaint had too many defendants. So the evidence sits in the public docket, unruled on.

This is why Restore the First exists. The plaintiffs built the coalition to ensure that evidence does not sit there in silence, and to move the fight from a single federal courthouse to Congress, state legislatures, and the public record.

No.

The First Amendment is a constitutional structure that protects speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition regardless of who is holding office. The coalition includes plaintiffs and partner organizations across the political spectrum, united only by the demand that no American be silenced by government-directed intermediaries.

The Policy Blueprint is written to be co-sponsored across party lines. Bills tracked in the blueprint include Republican, Democratic, and Independent sponsors.

The coalition is organized around the six named plaintiffs and their partner organizations. It does not accept funding from federal government sources, from foreign governments, or from platform trust-and-safety programs whose activities it exists to oppose.

Coalition partner organizations retain their own independent funding structures. See the About page for the current partner list.

Three paths, depending on who you are:

If you are an organization or independent publisher — use the coalition form at restorethe1st.com/join. Fill out the short form and your submission is routed to the coalition inbox.

If you are an individual American — the three actions in § 09 take about two minutes each: add your name to the petition to Congress, contact your representatives directly, or submit your own censorship story to the coalition record.

If you want to stay informed — the newsletter signup is at § 09b. No fundraising, no lists sold, just the record and periodic coalition statements.

In September 2026, the coalition added a sixth pillar to its policy blueprint: Speech Infrastructure.

The five original First Amendment pillars — religion, speech, press, assembly, petition — were written for a world in which citizens composed their own words and retrieved their own answers. Every one of those acts now runs through a layer of AI mediation being built by two or three companies. If any of those companies is captured by federal licensing, the mediation layer becomes an instrument of the state — and all five original pillars flow through it.

The full argument is in the coalition statement The Next Censorship Won’t Look Like Censorship. The policy asks are in the sixth pillar of the blueprint.

The full public statement from the six plaintiffs is at restorethe1st.com/statement.

The complete evidentiary record — every plaintiff, every federal defendant, every documented action — is at restorethe1st.com/record.