SCOTUS Ruling Deals Blow to Freedom of Speech

Revolver

American liberty took a crushing blow….at the hands of Amy Coney Barrett, Chief Justice John Roberts, and the three liberals on the court. The case is called Murthy v. Missouri.

…….The Supreme Court on Wednesday handed the Biden administration an election-year victory, throwing out a conservative challenge to the administration’s push to get social media companies to remove posts it considered misinformation.

The 6-3 decision, led by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, was a response to a suit that came during a hot-button period on social media when people were posting about COVID-19, vaccines, Fauci, and other emotional topics. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Barrett, writing for the 6-3 majority, said the challengers argued that unfettered speech on social media is critical to their work as scientists, pundits and activists.

“But they do not point to any specific instance of content moderation that caused them identifiable harm,” Barrett wrote. “They have therefore failed to establish an injury that is sufficiently ‘concrete and particularized.’”

Justice Alito minced no words in describing what a crushing blow this is for our freedoms.

……In the dissent, Alito complained that the majority “unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment.”

“For months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech,” Alito wrote in an opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

By dismissing the case without deciding the underlying First Amendment issue, the justices avoided saying when governments go too far in interacting with media platforms about their content.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett has now handed the Biden regime a license to censor so-called “disinformation” with impunity……

The Justice Department said government agencies weren’t improperly threatening social media companies, but instead, were encouraging them to remove harmful or false information, including about vaccines. There was no retaliation when the platforms did not do what the government requested, the Justice Department said.

[…]

Experts had called the case, Murthy v. Missouri, a unique chance for the court to define how far governments may go to protect against online distribution of harmful content.

The court also heard another case this year about content moderation, examining the constitutionality of laws passed by Florida and Texas to limit the ability of social media giants to regulate user content.

Both cases grew out of concern from conservatives that their views were being suppressed, including about claims of 2020 election fraud, the origin of and treatments for COVID-19.

The Gateway Pundit explains what all of this means for the layman:

“In a stunning 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Biden Administration’s policy of deleting, suppressing, and deplatforming specific people, topics, and ideas, is immune from suit leaving no one able to challenge it in court.

In addition, Justice Coney Barrett let the government off the hook for the censorship regime the government created and maintained. Here’s the key passage:

“platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment. To be sure, the record reflects that the Government defendants played a role in at least some of the platforms’ moderation choices. But the Fifth Circuit, by attributing every platform decision at least in part to the defendants, glossed over complexities in the evidence.”

There were no “complexities in the evidence” – the evidence was clear: the FBI, White House, and other officials were specifically directing, demanding, and coercing social media companies to take down posts that related to topics they wanted suppressed.

Here are some of the key topics brought out in discovery that the government was most interested in suppressing, generally:

  • Hunter Biden’s laptop
  • Vaccines
  • Voter fraud in the 2020 election
  • COVID policy, masking, lockdowns, vaccine mandates

[…]

The Supreme Court is making it procedurally impossible for a citizen or a state to challenge the government’s ability to silence your digital speech. The practical consequence of this decision is to re-open the floodgates of social media censorship and speech suppression.”

The SCOTUS found that the plaintiffs couldn’t show where Big Tech/government censorship harmed them.

The justices who think that there was no harm done with the collaboration of suppression between Big Tech social media and the Biden regime, should have their heads extracted from their asses.

The exposure of the Twitter files showed just how far weaponized agencies went to suppress counter arguments and facts refuting the Russian collusion hoax, the draconian covid lockdowns, the lies pushed by Fauci and Big Pharma, and the Hunter Biden laptop. What this does is give the government a license to control information and disappear anything they don’t like.  That kind of shit happens in North Korea and China. Now it’s happening here.

 

 

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
Wordpress Social Share Plugin powered by Ultimatelysocial