Many conservatives view the Supreme Court as betraying freedom by this move. Why did they bother taking the case, only to dismiss it in such fashion? This has Deep State fingerprints all over it. The long hand of Intel can work wonders when they want. At least that is my opinion.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court dismissed an effort by a coalition of social media users and the states of Louisiana and Missouri to restrict the Biden administration’s influence over social media platforms in curbing what it deems misinformation. The court ruled that these plaintiffs lacked the necessary legal standing to demand an injunction against the administration for its interactions with these companies. This decision, resulting from a 6-3 vote in the case known as Murthy v. Missouri, saw Justice Amy Coney Barrett authoring the majority opinion. She emphasized that the plaintiffs failed to convincingly link their previous social media censorship to direct actions taken by the administration.
Top #news headlines today for June 26, 2024.
Supreme Court rejects challenge to administration’s contacts with social media companies.
Biden pardons potentially thousands of ex-service members convicted under now-repealed gay sex ban. pic.twitter.com/V9V1KdxY5k
— Fighting Liberal🇺🇸🌈🌊🌊🌊🇺🇦🇺🇸 (@texyellowdogdem) June 26, 2024
The ruling effectively overturns a previous lower court mandate that had restricted the extent of interaction between White House officials and social media companies, an order that the Justice Department contended was excessive. This injunction had been temporarily paused pending the Supreme Court’s review.
Justice Barrett, in her opinion, pointed out the plaintiffs’ reliance on past instances of government censorship as a predictor of future suppression, a connection they failed to establish satisfactorily. This, Barrett argued, undermined their standing to seek preventative measures against potential future violations.
In contrast, Justice Samuel Alito, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissenting, criticized the majority’s decision to bypass the broader free speech implications. Alito warned that this sets a precedent that could serve as a blueprint for future governmental coercion on private speech.
The US Supreme Court signaled it’s likely to reject curbs on the Biden administration’s contacts with social media companies, hearing a case that will shape efforts to tackle election interference and misinformation.@tylerskendall has more https://t.co/NlEsZoEUHB pic.twitter.com/pFtke0OpwW
— Bloomberg TV (@BloombergTV) March 18, 2024
The legal contention revolved around accusations that the administration had created a “federal ‘Censorship Enterprise,'” pushing social media platforms to sideline undesirable speech. The Supreme Court’s decision allows the administration to continue collaborating with technology firms on various issues including national security threats and public health, without the restraints previously imposed by the lower court. What this means is they are now letting Biden and crew tell FBI and the rest of the Deep State to censor outlets, and sites at will. Until this is fixed, freedom suffers as Biden and the FBI can do a little something like they already did, in telling all social media to not allow a certain New York Post article to be spread because it is ‘Russian propaganda’. You all know how that turned out. They scammed their way into stealing the 2020 election. This was but one method used against Facebook, Twitter and the rest.
Major Points
- The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge by social media users and the states of Louisiana and Missouri against the Biden administration’s efforts to regulate misinformation on social platforms.
- The court ruled 6-3 that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to seek an injunction, thus allowing the administration to maintain its communications with social media companies.
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, emphasized that the plaintiffs could not prove a direct link between their alleged censorship and the administration’s actions.
- In a dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito warned that the decision could set a precedent for future government interference in private speech.
- The ruling confirms the administration’s ability to collaborate with tech companies on issues like national security and public health without judicial constraints. It also now allows them to continue political repression at will. They can push their lies about Trump anytime now, and prevent the population from seeing the facts.
Carmin Jaslau – Reprinted with permission of Whatfinger News
