Supreme Court sides with Biden administration in social media censorship case

[mystery-ak]

Supreme Court sides with Biden administration in social media censorship case
By
Ashley Oliver
and
Kaelan Deese
June 26, 2024 10:06 am
.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday found that the state of Missouri did not have standing to challenge the Biden administration’s alleged coercion and efforts to encourage censorship on social media.

The 6-3 majority opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett found that the plaintiffs, which included individuals and the state of Missouri, lacked standing to bring the case.

The case first surfaced in 2022 as Missouri v. Biden. It involved the Republican attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana and five other plaintiffs bringing a lawsuit against the Biden administration over its involvement in social media companies’ censorship practices.

The plaintiffs alleged that the federal government had violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media companies to censor controversial posts, such as those about the COVID-19 lab leak theory or the vaccine, elections, or Hunter Biden’s computer data.

A federal judge in Louisiana ruled against the Biden administration, saying in a lengthy memorandum ruling that the case “depicts an almost dystopian scenario” where the government “seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’”

more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/supreme-court/3052932/supreme-court-sides-with-biden-administration-social-media-censorship-case/

[Julius Agricola]

I absolutely do not agree with the Supreme Court's decision, but the social media companies can tell the feds to pound sand.  I know most of the major sites do the bidding of the government, but it is up to the companies and individuals to stand up for our rights.

[DefiantMassRINO]

The real issue is that Americans don't trust the Government to be a source of truth.

[Bigun]

https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1805975734055321917

[Bigun]

I absolutely do not agree with the Supreme Court's decision, but the social media companies can tell the feds to pound sand.  I know most of the major sites do the bidding of the government, but it is up to the companies and individuals to stand up for our rights.

I agree with the dissenters in this case but this isn't the end of it by any means.

[Timber Rattler]

Misleading headline...SCOTUS did not rule on the merits of the case, as Barrett wrote, but simply on standing, and effectively punted. 

[Right_in_Virginia]

https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1805975734055321917

Thanks for posting this @Bigun

[Bigun]

https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1806047573125616120

[Bigun]

https://twitter.com/simonateba/status/1805977953035055551

[Kamaji]

Since the case involves a matter of standing, I would propose, in more general terms, that the Supreme Court needs to rethink/revisit some of its standing issues because, under current standing law, it seems to me that a lot of issues concerning how the government is conducting itself fall into a black hole where too many actions by the government are effectively unreviewable.

[Timber Rattler]

Since the case involves a matter of standing, I would propose, in more general terms, that the Supreme Court needs to rethink/revisit some of its standing issues because, under current standing law, it seems to me that a lot of issues concerning how the government is conducting itself fall into a black hole where too many actions by the government are effectively unreviewable.

Which is the point, I think, and enables Roberts and any of the other squishy justices to hide behind "standing" and "ripeness" to avoid making the hard, unpopular decisions.  It reeks of cowardice.

[mystery-ak]

Alito defends free speech as Supreme Court majority punts on Biden censorship case
By
Kaelan Deese
June 26, 2024 6:07 pm
.

Justice Samuel Alito on Wednesday wrote a dissent that stood up for defenders of free speech after the majority on the Supreme Court declined to weigh the merits of a major case accusing the Biden administration of attempting to censor users on social media.

The lawsuit known as Murthy v. Missouri alleged the Biden administration violated the First Amendment with several meetings in 2021 in which officials encouraged major social media platforms — primarily Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube — to suppress posts about COVID-19 and vaccines that did not conform with U.S. government health guidelines. But the 6-3 majority opinion authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett punted on the dispute by finding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue the administration.

Morgan Marietta, a dean at the University of Austin’s Center of Economics, Politics & History, told the Washington Examiner that the Murthy ruling is a “part of a trend on the Court to deny standing in order to dodge difficult constitutional questions.”

“The Court has a duty to vindicate constitutional rights, no matter how politically fraught, and Justice Alito writes in dissent that the Court ‘shirks that duty,'” Marietta said.

Conservatives and free speech proponents largely expressed disappointment on Wednesday in the outcome, including independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who claimed the Supreme Court “got it wrong” on Wednesday in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter.

“Justice Alito’s dissent outlines the correct analysis, finding standing and First Amendment violations on the merits. I will continue to fight for free speech in the courts and on the campaign trail,” Kennedy wrote.

more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/3060039/alito-free-speech-supreme-court-majority-biden-censorship/

[Bigun]

Which is the point, I think, and enables Roberts and any of the other squishy justices to hide behind "standing" and "ripeness" to avoid making the hard, unpopular decisions.  It reeks of cowardice.

 

[Bigun]

https://twitter.com/LeeSmithDC/status/1806187703181951139

[Bigun]

https://twitter.com/politicalmath/status/1806005422534406522

[Bigun]

[mountaineer]

Sharyl Attkisson 🕵️‍♂️💼🥋
@SharylAttkisson
The Supreme Court can uphold government censorship. But Congress can pass a law prohibiting it.
But they won't.
7:28 PM · Jun 26, 2024

Rand Paul
@RandPaul
Today's SCOTUS decision makes it clear we urgently need to defend our God-given right to free expression. It's time to fight back and pass my Free Speech Protection Act so the government can no longer cloak itself in secrecy to undermine the First Amendment rights of Americans.
Rand Paul moves to protect Americans' First Amendment rights from Biden admin collusion with Big Tech
12:25 PM · Jun 26, 2024