The Supreme Court docket acquired it unsuitable – and has didn’t uphold its accountability to the Structure by discovering no standing in Murthy v. Missouri. My case of Kennedy v. Biden will proceed within the trial courtroom the place there isn’t any query that @ChildrensHD and I’ve standing. Justice…
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) June 26, 2024
Right this moment’s disappointing Supreme Court docket choice in Murthy v. Missouri, holding that the assorted states weren’t harmed by authorities and Massive Tech censorship, is a get up name to all People.
Even with “conservative” judges like Amy Coney Barrett, we are able to’t anticipate any assist from…
— Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) June 26, 2024
The Supreme Court docket dominated in favor of the Biden admin’s energy to affect Massive Tech oligarchs.
They’ve given platforms like Fb, coerced by the Deep State, the ability to resolve what speech is “acceptable” as an alternative of defending the free trade of concepts.
A really harmful… pic.twitter.com/lH9qsqbiOu
— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) June 26, 2024
Matt Gaetz is speaking like he’s prepared for a revolution.
If the Supreme Court docket goes to throw out the First Modification and say that the federal government has a proper to inform non-public corporations what they’re allowed to publish, how are you going to do psychological gymnastics to the purpose the place you possibly can declare that the US authorities is reliable?
The US supreme courtroom has struck down a decrease courtroom ruling within the case of Murthy v Missouri, in a choice that didn’t discover the federal government’s communications with social media platforms about Covid-19 misinformation violated the primary modification. The courtroom’s choice permits the federal government to name on tech corporations to take away falsehoods, a key concern as misinformation spreads round this 12 months’s presidential election.
Nicely, the federal government doesn’t have a proper to take away “falsehoods.” That’s absurd.
However this ruling additionally claims that the federal government has the power to find out what’s and isn’t a falsehood, which is completely unbelievable.
The courtroom dominated 6-3 that the plaintiffs had no standing to deliver the case in opposition to the Biden administration, with conservative justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissenting. Though lots of the arguments within the case centered round how governments and platforms work together with free speech on-line, the ruling targeted extra on procedural points and a scarcity of authorized grounds to deliver the case.
“The plaintiffs, with none concrete hyperlink between their accidents and the defendants’ conduct, ask us to conduct a evaluate of the years-long communications between dozens of federal officers, throughout totally different businesses, with totally different social-media platforms, about totally different matters,” conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote. “This courtroom’s standing doctrine prevents us from ‘exercis[ing such] common authorized oversight’ of the opposite branches of presidency” .…
Throughout oral arguments, the federal government contended that calling on social media platforms to take stronger measures in opposition to misinformation didn’t quantity to threats and by no means implied authorized penalties. Public well being consultants and state officers had warned that blocking the federal government from flagging medical misinformation or election falsehoods might trigger severe societal hurt.
It’s a cop-out on a technicality.
However everybody is aware of this was not a few technicality. The case was in regards to the authorities partaking in direct censorship, one thing which might be the one most unlawful factor the federal government can do.
However hey – at the least they refused to consult with Twitter as “X.”
Gotta give them credit score for that.
