American freedom took a crushing blow today 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.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court handed the Biden administration an election-year victory on Wednesday, launching a conservative challenge to the administration's push to get social media companies to remove posts it deemed misinformation.
The 6-3 decision, led by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, was in response to a lawsuit that came during a heated period on social media when people were posting about COVID-19, vaccines, Fauci and other emotional issues . Justices Samual Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Barrett, writing for the 6-3 majority, said the challengers argued that unrestricted speech on social media is central to their work as scientists, experts and activists.
“But they do not point to any specific instance of content moderation that caused them identifiable harm,” Barrett wrote. “Therefore, they have failed to establish a sufficiently 'specific and particularized' injury.”
SCOTUS finding lack of standing for plaintiffs in Murthy v. Missouri effectively means that the government is free to violate your rights as long as it does so through a third party.
— Amber Duke (@ambermarieduke) June 26, 2024
Justice Alito didn't mince words to describe the crushing blow to our liberties. USA Today continues:
In the dissent, Alito complained that the majority “unreasonably refuses to address this grave threat to the First Amendment.”
“For months, senior government officials exerted relentless 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 over their content.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett has now given the Biden regime a license to censor so-called “disinformation” with impunity. USA Today continues:
The Justice Department said government agencies were not improperly threatening social media companies, but encouraging them to remove harmful or false information, including about vaccines. There was no retaliation when the platforms didn't do what the government asked, the Justice Department said.
[…]
The experts had called the case, Murthy v. Missouri, a unique opportunity for the court to define how far governments can go to protect themselves from the online distribution of harmful content.
The court also heard another case this year on content moderation, examining the constitutionality of laws passed by Florida and Texas to limit the social media giants' ability to regulate user content.
Both cases arose out of concerns among conservatives that their views were being suppressed, including claims of 2020 election fraud, the origin of and treatments for COVID-19.
The Gateway Pundit explain what does all this mean to the layman:
In a stunning 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Biden Administration's policy of removing, suppressing, and deleting specific people, issues, and ideas is immune from suit and leaves no one able to challenge it in court.
In addition, Judge Coney Barrett let the government off the hook for the censorship regime that the government created and maintained. Here is the key passage:
“Platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own discretion. Certainly, 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 all platform decisions at least in part to the defendants, overlooked the complexities of the evidence.”
There were no “complexities in the evidence”: The evidence was clear: The FBI, the White House and other officials were specifically directing, demanding, and coercing social media companies to remove posts related to topics they wanted suppressed.
Here are some of the key issues uncovered in the discovery that the government was most interested in suppressing, in general:
- Hunter Biden's laptop
- vaccines
- Electoral fraud in the 2020 elections
- COVID policy, masking, lockdowns, vaccine mandates
[…]
The Supreme Court procedurally prevents a citizen or state from challenging the government's ability to silence your digital speech. The practical consequence of this decision is to reopen the floodgates of social media censorship and speech suppression.
Jonathan Turley went on Fox News to break it down:
Jonathan Turley breaks down the frustrating ruling against free speech in Murthy v. Missouri.
“The Government is engaging in surrogate censorship … they have made a mockery of the limits of the 1st Amendment.” pic.twitter.com/K2eKnJtloF
— Media Research Center (@theMRC) June 26, 2024
Justice Alito didn't mince words, explaining that the Court shirked its duty and proclaimed that “the country may come to regret the Court's failure” to declare the illegal behavior of the Biden regime unconstitutional.
Alito didn't mince words about what SCOTUS has done with the Murthy decision:
“The Court … allows the successful campaign of coercion in this case to be an attractive model for future officials who want to control what people say, hear and think.” pic.twitter.com/uYYnNifJoF— Billy McMorris (@FBillMcMorris) June 26, 2024
Here's a close-up:
This says it all:
We can all look forward to the return of the Czar of Singing Censorship: pic.twitter.com/TOjLgG6Uku
— Gibbs Calhoun (@GibbsCalhoun) June 26, 2024
Lost in the shuffle is that the Court bet on one of the most important underlying issues, meaning the decision was not a total loss. Even so, this could be considered dereliction of duty, which could be worse.
Murthy v. Missouri
Perhaps the most significant statement in the otherwise disappointing but predictable majority opinion comes in a footnote.“Because we do not reach the merits, we express no opinion as to whether the Fifth Circuit correctly articulated the standard for when the Government transforms private conduct into state action.”
Murthy v. Missouri
Perhaps the most significant statement in the otherwise disappointing but predictable majority opinion comes in a footnote.“Because we do not reach the merits, we express no opinion as to whether the Fifth Circuit correctly articulated the standard for when the . pic.twitter.com/mfxXuNDuz5
— Benjamin Weingarten (@bhweingarten) June 26, 2024
It was disappointing, but not surprising, that no left-leaning justice stood up for free speech. The liberal left has completely wasted itself and given way to the proto-communist, speech-suppressing left.
The Libt*rds are doing victory laps.
The Supreme Court issued a surprising opinion Wednesday, siding with the Biden administration and kicking conspiracy theorists and purveyors of disinformation in the face.
[…]
The Supreme Court, in a 6 to 3 vote, found that the plaintiff's complaints lacked merit, reversing the opinion issued by the Fifth Circuit. The Supreme Court ruled that no tangible harm was done (egos don't count) by the government reaching out to social media companies to moderate a hose of garbage spouted by conservative charlatans.
Jeffrey Clark, former DOJ official brought X to explain the upcoming repercussions of this serious blow to freedom (emphasis ours):
The Supreme Court wrongly started the most important First Amendment case in American history on grounds that stand today, Murthy v Missouri.
And I say this as a true expert on the permanent doctrine.
In effect, the Supreme Court majority requires that government-private partnerships targeted for censorship overlap completely. If there are situations where the private censorship is prior to or subsequent to the government's demand for censorship, then the majority says that the actions should be treated as independent and therefore to frustrate the satisfaction of the cause and permanent analysis repair.
And the Supreme Court majority did so even as they simultaneously acknowledged that there was evidence of government collusion with Big Tech to censor speech related to COVID-19 and the 2020 election.
We need President Trump to be re-elected not only to ban the censorship activity of the federal government using Nig Tech as a cat's paw, but to initiate enforcement actions against those who violate the First Amendment.
The Judiciary revisiting this issue as posited in Murthy cannot be the last word or else the censorship to maintain leftist orthodoxies on important issues like COVID and elections will continue and expand.
Also note that this decision could not be more poorly timed. It took until 2024 to raise the 2020 censure for Supreme Court review. As a result, Joe Biden and his minions now have carte blanche to censor until the 2024 election, and these violations of the law could only be corrected if Trump returns to the White House. There is an inherent delay in First Amendment injuries, lawsuits, and winning claims sustained through appeal.
Finally, for all these reasons, we should be able to end forever the absurd position that the Supreme Court is taking on Trump's orders.
it doesn't But look at the MSM continuing their relentless attacks on the Supreme Court and its independence.
The Supreme Court wrongly started the most important First Amendment case in American history on grounds that stand today, Murthy v Missouri.
And I say this as a true expert on the permanent doctrine.
Indeed, the Supreme Court majority requires government-private partnerships aimed at…
— Jeff Clark (@JeffClarkUS) June 26, 2024
Alex Berenson took to X to declare his free speech lawsuit the last one standing.
SUPREME COURT CUTS MISSOURI SOCIAL MEDIA CENSORSHIP CASE INTO 'WEIGHT': FINDING PLAINTIFFS CAN'T SHOW ANY SPECIFIC CENSORSHIP INJURY TO THEM RELATED TO GOVERNMENT ACTION.
BERENSON V BIDEN (WHICH DOES NOT HAVE A SIMILAR PROBLEM) IS THE LAST REMAINING CASE
— Alex Berenson (@AlexBerenson) June 26, 2024
The full judgment of the Supreme Court can be accessed here in PDF format.
English 
Español de Venezuela 