Today, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 vote that sided with President Joe Biden’s administration that essentially allows continued permission for the White House to ask social media platforms to remove and delete content from their platforms if they don’t agree with the messaging.
The court case, Murthy [Surgeon General] v. Missouri [& Louisiana], alleged that the Biden administration strong-armed social media companies to remove content seen as ‘misinformation’ and anything else that the White House did not want to circulate. The case squarely blamed the likes of Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and a slew of other officials and departments for propagating this.
However, the court ruled that neither the state attorneys general nor the five private individuals who introduced the case held any water to pursue an injunction against any of the government defendants.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson were the majority vote.
Writing for the majority, the Barrett referred to it as a “tall order” to associate federal behavior with the injuries or even with “a substantial risk of future injuries.” She added:
“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. Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.
“The plaintiffs treat the defendants as a monolith, claiming broadly that “the government’ continues to communicate with the platforms about “content-moderation issues.” But we must confirm that each Government defendant continues to engage in the challenged conduct, which is ‘coercion’ and ‘significant encouragement,’ not mere ‘communication’…
“The plaintiffs, without any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants’ conduct, ask us to conduct a review of the years-long communications between dozens of federal officials, across different agencies, with different social-media platforms, about different topics. This Court’s standing doctrine prevents us from ‘exercis[ing such] general legal oversight’ of the other branches of Government.”
Writing for the dissenting, Justice Alto wrote there was “more than sufficient” evidence to establish the ability to sue. He wrote:
“These past and threatened future injuries were caused by and traceable to censorship that the officials coerced, and the injunctive relief [the plaintiff] sought was an available and suitable remedy. This evidence was more than sufficient to establish [the plaintiff’s] standing to sue, and consequently, we are obligated to tackle the free speech issue that the case presents. 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.”
As we said there, ‘a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly,’ and while an official may forcefully attempt to persuade, ‘[w]hat she cannot do . . . is use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.’
If the lower courts’ assessment of the voluminous record is correct, this is one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years.
What the officials did in this case was more subtle than the ham-handed censorship found to be unconstitutional in Vullo, but it was no less coercive. And because of the perpetrators’ high positions, it was even more dangerous.
It was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so. Officials who read today’s decision together with Vullo will get the message. If a coercive campaign is carried out with enough sophistication, it may get by. That is not a message this Court should send.
He added
Bloomberg Law pointed out: ‘Although the ruling gives the administration a freer hand to talk to social media companies, it’s not clear how active the government will be as the November election approaches. Even after the Supreme Court temporarily lifted the restrictions in October, the administration remained cautious and wasn’t in touch with platforms about election-related matters, an official who works on those issues said in March.’
White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre supported the ruling in a statement:
“This Administration engages with social media and other technology companies on critical topics, including terrorism threats, foreign malign influence campaigns, online harassment of women and children, and mental health of children and adolescents. The Supreme Court’s decision today ensures this work can continue as the country faces ongoing threats online.”
AUTHOR COMMENTARY
Another day, another right is stolen right in front of our eyes: and the American people are more concerned with Taylor Swift and the circus. I am surprised? No. What else is new at this point?
This ruling is basically akin to the E.U.’s Digital Services Act that allows the bureaucrats to force social media and tech giants to remove content they don’t want seen.
“This is one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years.” And so of course, go figure that the majority would rule in favor of allowing the stampeding of our Amendment rights, again; but at this point the Constitution and Bill of Rights are just toilet paper at this point.
Isaiah 1:21 How is the faithful city become an harlot! it was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers. [23] Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them.
[7] Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? [8] Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? [9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? [10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. (1 Corinthians 9:7-10).
The WinePress needs your support! If God has laid it on your heart to want to contribute, please prayerfully consider donating to this ministry. If you cannot gift a monetary donation, then please donate your fervent prayers to keep this ministry going! Thank you and may God bless you.
Basically, they have the power to delete real truth, because it don’t alien with what evil their pushing!
I say kept telling the Truth so much, that they get tired of dumping it and give up; one can only try, so:
2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.