The Supreme Court Will allow the Biden administration to continue pressuring social media companies to censor social media posts. We don’t have free speech except for X. They threw the case out.
In a 6-3 decision, Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Roberts joined the liberals or, should I say, leftists. They claimed that in Murthy v. Missouri, they had no standing and could not prove significant harm.
The actual conservatives, Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch, said that this decision was wrong and that what the administration has been doing is blatantly unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the White House and federal agencies such as the FBI may continue to urge social media platforms to take down content the government views as disinformation, handing the Biden administration a technical, if important, election-year victory, reports CNN.
-
The Importance of Prayer: How a Christian Gold Company Stands Out by Defending Americans’ Retirement
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority.
“To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek,” Barrett wrote. “Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.”
Republican Attorneys General of Missouri and Louisiana said the Biden administration engaged in an informal, backdoor campaign of coercion to silence voices it disagreed with – a practice known as “jawboning.”
They said the FBI leaned on platforms to remove content it identified as “foreign” when the posts were written by Americans.
“The Court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think,” Alito wrote in the dissent. “That is regrettable.”
He called the conduct of the officials sued in the case “unconstitutional,” “coercive,” and “dangerous.”
“It was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so,” Alito wrote.
His 34-page dissent reviewed the details of the case as he sought to counter the court’s conclusions that the challengers lacked standing while also addressing the merits of their claims.
“For months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech. Because the Court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent,” Alito said.
Jonathan Turley breaks down the frustrating anti-free speech ruling in Murthy v. Missouri.
"The Government is engaging in censorship by surrogate… they have made a mockery of the limits of the 1st Amendment." pic.twitter.com/K2eKnJtloF
— Media Research Center (@theMRC) June 26, 2024
The Supreme Court also appears to have a created a brand new standard that appears nowhere in the First Amendment — coercion. The actual text in the Constitution sets the bar far lower — abridgment. If speech is abridged, the government has violated the Constitution. What a sad… https://t.co/CxONrCWNYy
— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) June 26, 2024
Subscribe to the Daily Newsletter
wpDiscuz
